from the business-model-change? dept

Last we'd heard from Disney "research analyst" Anthony Accardo, he was whining about how the tech industry somehow owes the entertainment industry a living. In that article, he seemed to believe that the massive entertainment conglomerates, like the one who employs him, are "the little guys" with no government power, who haven't had an active role in copyright policy over the last century. Apparently, no one reminded Accardo that when Homeland Security's ICE division kicked off their effort to censor websites without due process, they did so from Disney's headquarters. Perhaps Accardo was home sick that day? And need we mention Disney's role in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act?

Anyway, his insistence that the media conglomerates in the music, movie and TV industries are somehow helpless weaklings comes across in another recent writeup by him, in which he insists that there are only two options with PROTECT IP: capitulate or pass PROTECT IP and censor websites.

You see what's missing? Any suggestion whatsoever that perhaps the solution is to adapt and to change your business model.

That there's growing evidence that when companies actually provide consumers what they want in a convenient manner, infringement declines massively, would seem to demonstrate that there is a more compelling option. Especially when you look at the history of greater enforcement of copyright law, which has been shown time and time again not to work. Shouldn't a "research" analyst be aware of all of this?

But, no, Accardo insists there are two, and only two, options, and neither of them seem to involve Disney adapting in the marketplace. The "first option" in Accardo's mind is to "uphold the status quo," which (in Accardo's world) means that infringement is unstoppable. No mention is made of new legal services and their ability to compete and drive down infringement rates. Apparently, reality doesn't match with the Disney narrative. Those Disney folks. They write such amazing fantasy.

Option 2, then, is to pass PROTECT IP, break the internet and censor websites. Accardo, of course, insists that this isn't censorship. He ignores the reports from key internet architects that PROTECT IP would break the internet, but instead decides to focus on the claims of censorship. Or, rather, he doesn't focus on the actual claims of censorship, but instead focuses on a fuzzy strawman:

Censorship is suppression of speech deemed harmful or objectionable to the general public by a government body. Those who profit from piracy want to include unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content in the category of speech. In our earlier example, my distribution of Tha Carter IV through newalbumreleases, RapidShare and Google to a million people without the consent of Lil Wayne would be considered an exercise of free speech. Let's ignore the fact that Tha Carter IV isn't my speech, but Lil Wayne's (and piracy hardly falls under "fair use"). If blocking unauthorized access to a work of art that is available ubiquitously through legal channels is censorship, then we need a new definition of censorship.

I've seen a few similar arguments made in the comments, and it's beyond intellectually dishonest. Because the complaint of the law professors, that Accardo is discussing, is not about how taking down such sites will stop infringement. Everyone agrees that infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. The complaint is in how the bulldozer approach of PROTECT IP doesn't just stop infringing speech, but all speech on those websites, including tremendous amounts of legitimate and protected speech.

This is not a theoretical argument either. We have real evidence. The same "Operation In Our Sites" effort that launched at Disney headquarters took down a bunch of blogs and forums with protected speech on them. There's a lawsuit going on about that right now. Playing the card of "infringement isn't protected speech" is not valid, because no one's saying we should protect infringement. We're talking about the massive amount of collateral damage that happens when you use such a bull-in-a-china-shop approach of taking down entire websites (with no or limited due process) including tons of protected speech.

Furthermore, considering that Accardo's colleagues in the entertainment industry have a long, long history of describing perfectly legitimate activities as "infringing," we're pretty reasonably worried that his employers would end up taking down important protected speech in their willy-nilly, why-should-we-innovate approach to the modern market. After all, this is the industry that declared the player piano, the radio, the photocopier, the VCR, the DVR, the MP3 player and online video platforms to be dedicated to infringing activity. And, most recently, some of his colleagues in the industry decided that such resources as the Internet Archive and popular content sites like Vibe Magazine were dedicated to infringing activities.

So while Accardo may be sure that such things would never, ever happen under PROTECT IP, given the fact that we see them taking down and blocking legitimate, protected, non-infringing speech all the time... forgive us for saying that we (and many others) are very, very worried about the censorship mechanism provided by PROTECT IP.

Re:

I know that this was said in jest, but it's not that far off from a real solution. Patents and copyrights are gov's way of attempting to introduce scarcity into an area where it wouldn't otherwise exist (ideas). Would people suddenly stop innovating just because someone else might be able to take and expand upon their idea? Would music stop being created or books stop being written just because those authors wouldn't have artificial monopoly on the distribution of their work?

Is there a real, actual justification for the continued existence of copyrights and patents?

"In that article, he seemed to believe that the massive entertainment conglomerates, like the one who employs him, are "the little guys" with no government power, who haven't had an active role in copyright policy over the last century."

What he means is that he wants complete, uncompromising, control over the government and he doesn't want anyone else to participate in the legislative process. Like most IP maximists, he is completely unwilling to even compromise just a tiny bit.

These people have managed to get 95+ year copy protection lengths, I think the problem here is that they have way too much influence.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

When IP maximists are completely uncompromising on issues of legislative policy then why should the public be compromising and obey IP at all?

The law is completely one sided in favor of IP maximists, so if the law won't even compromise to serve the public interest whatsoever then why should the public compromise and obey nefarious and self interested laws that aren't designed to serve the public interest? That's the way I see it. I'm not encouraging people to break the law, I discourage it, but I think the way most people see it is that if the law won't compromise, neither will they. The law wants to be one sided against them, they'll be one sided in disobeying it.

Re: Re: Re:

and one must also think about it from an economic standpoint. If someone is going to get in the same amount of trouble for getting caught copying something that's 40 years old as if he got caught copying something 5 years old and someone decides that the laws are one sidedly self interested and uncompromising and therefore he is going to uncompromisingly return the favor and one sidedly ignore them, then why should that person obey the law for works that are under seven years old and not obey the law for works that are over seven years old? You're taking the same risk either way, so you might as well maximize your reward. Now, if copy protection lengths lasted seven years, it might be worth the investment of only copying things that are over seven years old and waiting for new things to become over seven years old and maybe buying some things that are under seven years old. It might not be worth the risk of copying things that are under seven years when you have a public domain of things over seven years old to copy from. This will also encourage innovation as it encourages new content and product creators to better compete with old products by adding new innovations that encourage people to buy.

If the law is one sidedly self interested then the lesson that we are taught is that it's OK to be one sidedly self interested and so our natural response is to be one sidedly self interested and to ignore the law. The law is one sidedly self interested with me, why shouldn't I be one sidedly self interested with it?

We treat people like they treat us. If someone is compromising, we do business with them. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. If someone is completely uncompromising and one sided then we will be one sided about not doing business with them. If you give me X dollars, I'll sell you my car. If you give me $0, I'm not going to compromise and give you half of my car. I'll give you none of my car. See how that works.

Likewise, if we deem the law on our side, we work with it. If we deem it to be uniformly against us and self interested, we won't work with it. Instead, we'll act self interested because the law is self interested. Just like with people, we treat laws like they treat us.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The idea behind IP law is that it's a compromise. I give up a few years of my natural right to freely copy and, in return, I get more public domain works in the long run.

but here there is no compromise. Nothing ever makes it in the public domain anymore. Why should the public give up its right to freely copy for any period of time if its getting absolutely nothing in return?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The idea behind IP law is that it's a compromise. I give up a few years of my natural right to freely copy and, in return, I get more public domain works in the long run.

but here there is no compromise. Nothing ever makes it in the public domain anymore. Why should the public give up its right to freely copy for any period of time if its getting absolutely nothing in return?

Do you seriously think that shortening copyright horizon will matter to the people who can't wait a week to see a show on Fox?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Maybe not to every person, but to many more people. Government can't control every last person, if it could, there would be no crime. But just because crime will always exist is no excuse to have bad laws.

America != China

I don't understand why people keep comparing America to china when it comes to censorship

In China free speech is censored by the government by the will of the governing party so that the governing party will stay in control (by making sure that people don't realize that they can organize and overthrow the government.)

In America free speech is censored by the government by the will of big corporations so that they will keep backing the man they helped put into the Presidency (via monetary support).

Hmm ... maybe this isn't so different at all.

The politicians all seem to be looking out for themselves, at least this hypothesis explaines why the biggest stakeholder (the public) in these debates never get invited to have its say.

Re: America != China

actually you're right, it is very different. In China you get censored by order of the government. In the U.S. you get censored by order of the Corporates that own the government. See, the motives in the case of China are ideological. The motives in the case of the US are monetary. If there's money involved, those that make the most are in the right regardless of their ideology.

Re: Re: America != China

In a state where greed is glorified, money is an ideological goal, albeit a morally bankrupt one. In both cases, the end result is exactly the same: more power to the powerful elite, less power to the powerless peasants.

Re: Re: Re: America != China

"...the end result is exactly the same"

Yes, the elite power brokers in the Chinese Communist Party have a very lucrative line of work, and they'd prefer to keep it that way.
China gave up on Marxism/Maoism ideology long ago.
It's just as much about money in China as it is in the US.

Re: Re: America != China

They are TOTALLY different.

In the US you get sent to prison because you're young and healthy and can make profit for the privatized prisons (and they keep you there beyond your sentence by any means necessary) whilst offering kickbacks all the way upto and including the president.

In China you get tissue-typed as you get sentenced then cut to pieces for organ-tourists.

Re: America != China

The politicians all seem to be looking out for themselves, at least this hypothesis explaines why the biggest stakeholder (the public) in these debates never get invited to have its say.

You have a First Amendment right to petition the government. Your interests are also represented by the public interest tech organizations like EFF. We live in a representative democracy. Talk to your representatives. If you are a one issue voter, elect a guy who reflects your belief. But don't sit back bemoaning your powerlessness if you haven't gotten off your butt and done something.

Re: Re: America != China

Yawn.

First, you don't know the person who commented well enough to know if they have "done something" or not.

Second, "talk to your representatives", seriously? I've sent at least 20 letters to congress-critters and every time I get back a form letter. I guess I forgot to include a "donation" for the campaign.

Third, I challenge you to find more than 1 person running for congress who would actively pursue a legislative agenda involving copyright. Sure some reps might be interested in it but they would never bother to propose a bill that has virtually no chance of passing.

We don't live in a representative democracy, we live in an incorporated democracy were a select group of people make all the decisions and the public are unwilling investors.

Re: Re: Re: America != China

Yawn.

First, you don't know the person who commented well enough to know if they have "done something" or not.

Lots of the biggest crybabies I know either don't vote or aren't even registered.

Second, "talk to your representatives", seriously? I've sent at least 20 letters to congress-critters and every time I get back a form letter. I guess I forgot to include a "donation" for the campaign.

Really, 20 letters? I hope you didn't come off like a nutjob. Reasonableness and avoiding zealotry are good ideas too. Leave the tinfoil hat at home. Go visit their district office. They get thousands of e-mails and letters every year, what did you expect? A four page handwritten letter? And don't dress like a bum if you want to be taken seriously. Wear a suit.

Third, I challenge you to find more than 1 person running for congress who would actively pursue a legislative agenda involving copyright. Sure some reps might be interested in it but they would never bother to propose a bill that has virtually no chance of passing.

So run for office yourself. At worst, if you get on the ballot and copyright is your issue, you can shine a light on it. I'm sure Floor64 will write you a big $10,000 check along with Google and Yahoo.

We don't live in a representative democracy, we live in an incorporated democracy were a select group of people make all the decisions and the public are unwilling investors.

You can't get fucked unless you assume the position. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and go do something.

You see what's missing? Any suggestion whatsoever that perhaps the solution is to adapt and to change your business model.

But why, Pirate Mikey? The entertainment cartels were here first - why should they have to change because some filthy pirates are stealing their money?

The questions you freetards don't answer is why shouldn't the internet have to be the one to change? They're the ones that are disrupting the business model - it's not fair that Disney can't make money the way they used to!

And while we're at it, let's get those damn cars off the road - they're causing the buggy-whip industry to lose money!

(so how'd I do? Was that troll-y enough? Should I use "Pirate Mike" more? How about "freetards"?)

Re:

Re:

History would dictate differently. Pirates existed before these entertainment cartels. The difference is that they they actually took what you had thereby depriving you of it. Today the pirates are a little different as all they get is a copy of something rather than the original. The cartels have not truly lost anything. They still have all of their movies. I find that generally they (pirates) do it not because they want to steal from you, but because of the cartels failings to provide the service which they are looking for.

Re: Re:

I have visions of Ferengi 'pirates' capturing Klingon ships, raiding the cargo and using replicators to 'copy' it exactly, thus giving them a template to infinitely replicate without having to take the risk of raiding more Klingon vessels...

"What do you mean that our _gagh_ isn't good enough to steal, Ferengi _petaQ_?"

Re:

Re:

>>The entertainment cartels were here first - why should they have to change because some filthy pirates are stealing their money?

Actually, no. Musicians, poets, authors and other artists were around long before the entertainment cartels. And the modus operandi of artists was (and still is) to be inspired by and draw on the works of others.

Then cartels developed to "help" the artists, but even that charade is gone now. The entertainment cartels use crooked accounting and other methods to avoid paying artists. The filthy cartels are stealing their money.

Re: Re: I wonder which one is most effective?

stop wasting your breath, Mike. once the internet is broken and no site except the entertainment industry approved (and paid for) ones are available for access, then they will be happy. am waiting to see how long before the various governments then take over from the entertainment industries. how long before those governments start moaning because they are losing a fortune in tax as no one can buy from internet shops. how long before more companies go to the wall. even banking and bill-paying will stop. will be interesting.

The complaint is in how the bulldozer approach of PROTECT IP doesn't just stop infringing speech, but all speech on those websites, including tremendous amounts of legitimate and protected speech.

So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing. It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft. Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing. So stop with the wild FUD fantasies.

I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken. Filtering and site blocking exists already. Why isn't it broken now? If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law.

Re:

Your entire analogy; and thus argument, is irreverent since it fails to compensate for the fact that even the law doesn't see copy"right" and property as equal. They are not.
And the reason? Its this little thing called physics, someday you may get to that class in school. But until then, I suggest you continue to play with your business Barbie.

Re: Re:

Re:

"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing."

Your analogy is invalid. Both the pawn shop and the liquor store owners/operators need to actively participate in the crime for it to happen.

Service providers do not. They simply provide a space where users are free to do whatever. If the users run amok and do illegal things, you should prosecute THEM, not the service provider. Unless the service provider actively encourages and/or participates in the crime, there really is no reason to prosecute him/her/it.

Re: Re: Re:

Don't be stupid. The websites are largely unaware of what content is being stored on their services. The proper analogy would be that of one of those storage facilities. If someone was storing illegal narcotics in one of the units they rent, is the storage provider responsible for the customers actions? No, they did not rent the unit with the expectation that they would be storing illegal contraband. They can't know what's in there because they would be violating the 4th amendment to ascertain the contents of the unit, just as bit lockers can't snoop in customers accounts.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don't be stupid. The websites are largely unaware of what content is being stored on their services. The proper analogy would be that of one of those storage facilities. If someone was storing illegal narcotics in one of the units they rent, is the storage provider responsible for the customers actions? No, they did not rent the unit with the expectation that they would be storing illegal contraband. They can't know what's in there because they would be violating the 4th amendment to ascertain the contents of the unit, just as bit lockers can't snoop in customers accounts.

You should look and see what companies like Rapidshare are doing. BTW the 4th Amendment applies to governments.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's odd, I see nothing stating that it only applies to government.

Break out the Thorazine, we have another apologist break with reality. So I need a warrant to search my kid's room to see if he has any beer stashed under his bed? You have truly gone above and beyond with this one. You should make yourself a tinfoil crown. I anoint thee, King Nutjob The 1st.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It would have to be "dedicated to facilitating unlawful drug transactions."

And who gets to define that? To keep the analogy going, that would be the competing transportation companies, like maybe Amtrak, right?

A judge would, using something similar to the following standard:

the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’ means an Internet site that—

(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the

(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A judge would, using something similar to the following standard:

And will this take place at an adversarial hearing, prior to any asset seizure, with all parties present, so to be sure that is no prior restraint on speech and that all entities are able to present their side of the issue?

(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the...

Hmmm. That definition didn't seem to work out so well for some of the hip hop blogs that have been seized by ICE. Their PRIMARY use was to discuss music and still they were seized.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

@Gwiz

It would be nice if you weren't so fucking lazy and actually read and understood the proposed Act:

IN REM.—If through due diligence the At-
torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedi- cated to infringing activities.

Regarding the ICE seizures, it's a different law entirely, though it does comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It would be nice if you weren't so fucking lazy and actually read and understood the proposed Act:

Well, since my job isn't to spin detrimental proposed Congressional acts on various blog sites, I don't always have the time fully investigate these things. But, you can call me lazy all you want if it makes you feel better.

...or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action...

So basically, if the site's owner is not resident of the US then there is no need to actually try to find them, right?

Regarding the ICE seizures, it's a different law entirely, though it does comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I realize that the ICE seizures were done under existing law, not PIPA. But, the in rem procedures on those cases are so extremely disturbing with regards to prior restraint and due process issues that I firmly believe we will get similar or worse results with PIPA.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What's significant other than a subjective word? TPB has significant legal uses. Aside the known examples (Linux and open software distribution) you can find stuff from indie groups (music and movie alike) and I'm not even talking about Pioneer One, Zephyr and the likes. So, considering it has significant legal and cultural uses then TPB is perfectly legal, no? Mr Troll, your arguments are more broken than usual.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What size is significant? Have you read my comment? Seems you only read what suited you. Again, what is the meaning of significant? How much is significant? 1% of legal content is significant? 7% is significant? 20% of speech going around might be Nazi, KKK and other hatred and prejudice spreading but no1 ever closed the internet based on this (I'm just guessing a number).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Has anyone told you that the selective enforcement, the growing amount of money spent on drugs (currently upwards of $75 billion), the tattletaling, long imprisonments, and focus on trying to limit supply of drugs from Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Turmenistan, China, and anywhere else other than the US, has failed

And the fact is, decriminalization and legalization of certain drugs would probably work a lot better to help societies around the world that a look at prohibition. Unless you're going to go against the Global Commission on Drug Policy...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

For the record Jay. I like the idea of drugs being legalized and controlled by the government. That way if you're an addict (after convincing a panel of doctors) you can go to a clinic get your fix under medical supervision. Offered in tandem with addiction treatment, it would be a much better policy. For soft drugs like pot, legalize it, tax it and use the money to pay for social programs. Get the criminals out of the business, stop the firefights on street corners and help bring stability to producer nations. Drugs are for losers anyway. Might as well realize some good from it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Drugs are for losers anyway."

Are cigarettes and alcohol for losers too? What about medical marijuana? You know, for those who suffer, like cancer patients? Also losers?

OK, let's go down the sidetrack. Medical marijuana is, well medical. Morphine used in a clinical setting is medicinal along with a host of other drugs. Cigarettes are definitely for losers. Alcohol... not sure, depends on how it's used. But as far as I'm concerned it should all be legal and taxed and the proceeds used for public health and addiction recovery. happy now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

I don't know about your area, but the rental market here has shifted into two major categories. The normal renters market is still slightly depressed, but the crack house market is booming. I cannot tell you the last time I saw a legitimate crack house for rent in my city.

Re: Re: Re:

You'll get it right eventually. You just need to keep making up examples. Let's try this one:

"Oh, like the owner of a crackhouse, renting it out to junkies and dealers? Sorry, he's on the hook too. Nice try though."

Like I said, unless the service provider actively participates on, or encourages illegal activities, there is no reason for him/her to be prosecuted.

I don't know what do you mean by "crackhouse", but if you mean that it is a specific place where crack is sold, then the owner is already in trouble. I assume, he is controlling the operations, since it is his/her crackhouse? And since drug dealing is illegal...

But let's assume the most likely scenario (and the most useful for this discussion). Let's assume that I have a house that I want to rent.

I really don't care what people do in there, as long as they don't bother me and pay the rent. Everything else is THEIR problem. I don't see why I should be prosecuted if they decide to turn it into a crackhouse without my knowledge. They should be prosecuted, not me.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

But let's assume the most likely scenario (and the most useful for this discussion). Let's assume that I have a house that I want to rent.

I really don't care what people do in there, as long as they don't bother me and pay the rent. Everything else is THEIR problem. I don't see why I should be prosecuted if they decide to turn it into a crackhouse without my knowledge. They should be prosecuted, not me.

Why do you think that the house owner should be penalised in any way?

Here's the disconnect. Willful blindness. You can't simply ignore what's going on and wash your hands in the Holy Water. There are many former crackhouse owners who collected big rents and looked the other way right up until the time the government seized the property. They made the same argument. Didn't work out for them either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Dude, if I rent a house I couldn't care less if it's a brothel or a family house. Except that if it comes to my knowledge it is being used for something illegal I myself will call the police. However, if I can't possibly know there is something illegal going on inside I can't do shit.

Let's exercise our imagination: I rent a house and put a sign that says "Marijuana's place". I may get suspicious if I see it and ask what's happening or ask the police to check. But then I might find the guy is just some weirdo that thought "Marijuana's place" is funnier than "Home sweet home". On the other hand, another guy comes and rent my house and actually makes it into a marijuana distribution place WITHOUT any merry sign in front of it telling that you can shop marijuana there. How am I supposed to know? Crystal ball? Should I check the stars daily to see if they tell me the guy is drug dealing in my house? Oh wait, I can always conduct a raid without a warrant since the house is mine anyways so nothing would happen if the person renting isn't doing anything wrong.... Actually we who have rented houses should conduct weekly raids with the police on our properties to make sure they aren't being misused.

Re:

So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Purple monkey dishwasher.

It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft.

There you go with the stealing thing again.

Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing.

It's very precise in that it was written by a rent-seeking industry that wants to enshrine it's profits into law.

So stop with the wild FUD fantasies.

I know it makes your lobbying job harder, but that's why they pay you the big bucks.

I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken.

Your willful blindness is your problem, not ours.

Filtering and site blocking exists already. Why isn't it broken now?

Except for this. You don't think that having a banner put up on your site falsely telling your customers that you're a child pornographer is a problem?

If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law.

And because of the Internet, your clients' business models were broken. All I can say is that is the consequence of not innovating.

Re: Re:

"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down."

Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Tell that to Matthew Smith and Phara.

"How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing."

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Purple monkey dishwasher.

Sure it does. Just like the pawn shop analogy you addressed

"It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft."

There you go with the stealing thing again.

Nice evasion

"Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing."

It's very precise in that it was written by a rent-seeking industry that wants to enshrine it's profits into law.

CDT wrote the definition. Did you miss that?

"So stop with the wild FUD fantasies."

I know it makes your lobbying job harder, but that's why they pay you the big bucks.

Actually the wild FUD fantasies and rabid zealotry of Techdirtbag Nation make it far easier to convince skeptical legislators that the opposition is, at its' core, freeloading criminals and that their objections are self-serving and meritless. Keep up the good work!

Except for this. You don't think that having a banner put up on your site falsely telling your customers that you're a child pornographer is a problem?

So how does it "break" the internet again? Mine works fine.

"If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law."

And because of the Internet, your clients' business models were broken. All I can say is that is the consequence of not innovating.

Once again, great non-answer.

If you continue with these anemic, pitiful arguments there's no way the Lord High Apologist will ever let you into the inner sanctum. This drivel you've spewed here is, quite frankly, embarrassingly weak. Try making a cogent argument once in awhile. Even Jay's delusional ravings are better than laughable crap you spew. In the Techdirtbag apologist rankings, you're in real danger of becoming another Marcus.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That sounds like one of your creepy fantasies. They knew it was illegal, they made $500,000 and then they got caught. I don't agree with every law out there, but I also wouldn't make excuses if I'd willingly violated such a law and had tp pay the price. Snivel on Wilson!!

Re: Re: Re:

Wow, a full point-by-point rebuttal! This is awesome. It must be a slow day on K street.

"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down."

Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Tell that to Matthew Smith and Phara.

I didn't say it isn't against the law, I said it's not stealing. It's a common way for you frame it because it sounds good from the podium, but it's not accurate and you know it.

"How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing."

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Purple monkey dishwasher.

Sure it does. Just like the pawn shop analogy you addressed

My point is, your analogy amounts to nothing more than "these are the same because they're both illegal." That's where the similarity ends however making it a poor analogy at best.

"It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft."

There you go with the stealing thing again.

Nice evasion

Thanks, coming from you that means a lot. You know, you could fill the Grand Canyon with the things your industry has regarded as "a vehicle for digital theft." Can you honestly begrudge us some skepticism that this won't just be used to keep stifle innovation and to stamp out those pesky new technologies that threaten your bottom line before they have a chance to catch on?

"Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing."

It's very precise in that it was written by a rent-seeking industry that wants to enshrine it's profits into law.

CDT wrote the definition. Did you miss that?

Nope. But, I do admire your ability to take something that you must not have been too happy with and run with it. "A paragraph of this bill WASN'T written by the industry! See!" You should focus group that angle though before you use it heavily though. A good paragraph in a bad bill is still a bad bill.

"So stop with the wild FUD fantasies."

I know it makes your lobbying job harder, but that's why they pay you the big bucks.

Actually the wild FUD fantasies and rabid zealotry of Techdirtbag Nation make it far easier to convince skeptical legislators that the opposition is, at its' core, freeloading criminals and that their objections are self-serving and meritless. Keep up the good work!

Really? If it was as you frame it, you'd think this bill would just have sailed through congress. Having to come here and put your talking points into every comment section makes it look like you're trying pretty hard. As a side note, it's quite hypocritical of you to portray others as self-serving.

"I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken."

Your willful blindness is your problem, not ours.

Excellent non-answer

I know you're familiar with the objections. You've heard them plenty but you don't want to believe them, because your paycheck depends on convincing people of the exact opposite. When the people who know the most about the Internet say there are problems it would behoove us to listen to them, don't you think? It's no secret that you and your clients would like nothing more than to see the Internet as we know it cease to exist. No one has any reason to trust your judgement when it comes to technology, unless their paid to.

Except for this. You don't think that having a banner put up on your site falsely telling your customers that you're a child pornographer is a problem?

So how does it "break" the internet again? Mine works fine.

So, if it's not a problem for you personally right now, then it's not a problem? Tell that to the 84,000 websites shutdown erroneously. That's just the breaks though, right? So what if innocent people were caught in the crossfire of your over-aggressive and frankly, botched, enforcement attempts? Surely something like that won't happen again. *eyeroll*

"If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law."

And because of the Internet, your clients' business models were broken. All I can say is that is the consequence of not innovating.

Once again, great non-answer.

You seem to be more than happy to see people experience the natural consequences of their actions as long as they're not your clients'. It appears that consequences are only for people who can't afford a lobbyist.

Anyway, that's the least of the issues in my opinion. Funny how you cherry pick that one to address. You know, the one where bad things happen to bad people. What about the bad things that happened good people?

If you continue with these anemic, pitiful arguments there's no way the Lord High Apologist will ever let you into the inner sanctum. This drivel you've spewed here is, quite frankly, embarrassingly weak. Try making a cogent argument once in awhile. Even Jay's delusional ravings are better than laughable crap you spew. In the Techdirtbag apologist rankings, you're in real danger of becoming another Marcus.

Re:

So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing.

Both involve store owners who are the gatekeeper who decides what is sold in the shop. Totally different from an open platform. On top of that, neither pawned goods nor liquor are *speech*.

It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft. Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing. So stop with the wild FUD fantasies.

Ah, weasel words and not at all accurate. It's broad and vague, and we've already seen how your friends in the industry have decided what is "dedicated to infringing" activities. On that list: player piano, radio, photocopier, vcr, cable tv, dvr, mp3 player, youtube, internet archive, soundcloud and more.

Even if CDT wrote the definition why should that matter? It's bad.

As for "adjudicated by a judge" you leave out that in the in rem process, it's a one-sided effort that does not allow the other side to be heard in an adversarial hearing prior to taking down the site.

I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken. Filtering and site blocking exists already. Why isn't it broken now? If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law.

Your failure to read the details is not really our problem. But considering the fact that pretty much anyone who actually works on internet infrastructure has made this point, I'll tend to listen to them. Lobbyists can pretend that it won't, but you're wrong.

Re: Re:

"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing."

Both involve store owners who are the gatekeeper who decides what is sold in the shop. Totally different from an open platform. On top of that, neither pawned goods nor liquor are *speech*.

OK, you don't like those? See my crackhouse analogy in response to one of your dumber sycophants, above.

"It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft. Protect IP Act is very precise in it's definition (as it was written by the Center For Democracy and Technology). It must be adjudicated (by a judge) as dedicated to infringing. So stop with the wild FUD fantasies."

Ah, weasel words and not at all accurate. It's broad and vague, and we've already seen how your friends in the industry have decided what is "dedicated to infringing" activities. On that list: player piano, radio, photocopier, vcr, cable tv, dvr, mp3 player, youtube, internet archive, soundcloud and more.

You seem to overlook the judicial review standard that doesn't apply to your examples. Other than that, point taken.

Even if CDT wrote the definition why should that matter? It's bad.

Her's a fundamental problem with you apologists. You acknowledge the problem of copyright infringement, then criticize any reasonable measure to combat it, never suggesting a viable alternative of your own. At least CDT was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and made an effort at introducing reasonable language. Personally, I think the House bill will have a broader definition.

As for "adjudicated by a judge" you leave out that in the in rem process, it's a one-sided effort that does not allow the other side to be heard in an adversarial hearing prior to taking down the site.

Here's where you are really full of shit. Read the law:

IN REM.—If through due diligence the At-
torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedi- cated to infringing activities.

An action can be taken ONLY AFTER the responsible party cannot be located. Guess what? They don't want to be located, because they know what they're doing is illegal and don't want to be caught. So what you suggest is that if a defendant doesn't respond... the matter should be dropped. Please Masnick, that's incredibly lame even for you.

"I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken. Filtering and site blocking exists already. Why isn't it broken now? If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law."

"Your failure to read the details is not really our problem. But considering the fact that pretty much anyone who actually works on internet infrastructure has made this point, I'll tend to listen to them. Lobbyists can pretend that it won't, but you're wrong."

Total non-answer. The whole "break the internet" Chicken Little hankie twist presumes would-be freeloaders will flock to alternative DNS. Due to relatively low security they'll get fleeced. That's a big "who cares" for me. If you chose to walk down a back alley in a bad section of town, rather than the brightly lit main street and you get mugged I don't have much sympathy. So if you chose an alternative DNS to try to freeload movies and music and get flim-flammed that's your own fault. We both know that filtering and site blocking have been happening for years; and the Internet still works. More FUD.

Re: Re: Re:

"An action can be taken ONLY AFTER the responsible party cannot be located."

So the huge loophole of foreign sites is unexplained, and domestic liability is increased. Great set of laws by those that just don't want to make their own legal alternatives and go crying to Congress to support their business model.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

3(a)(2) -IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.

----------------------

I guess the huge loophole of people being born outside of the US means they get no right to contest an in rem action before it occurs.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"3(a)(2) -IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities."

----------------------

I guess the huge loophole of people being born outside of the US means they get no right to contest an in rem action before it occurs.

Are you nuts? There's nothing that prevents a foreign actor to have a US-based agent. Many if not most legitimate foreign companies do. The rogue site operators deliberately avoid having a US agent in order to avoid service. Now you suggest that this act of evasion is excuse. Please. This is shit I'd expect from Marcus. Reload.

Re: Re: Re:

"You acknowledge the problem of copyright infringement, then criticize any reasonable measure to combat it, never suggesting a viable alternative of your own."

I know you don't read all the articles you comment on. but surely you couldn't have missed the numerous times that Mike and commenters have suggested that the entertainment industry should give fans what they want: lower prices, fewer restrictions, more conveniences, and more options. Mike even spoke in this article about Accardo not being able to see adaptation of the industry as an option and you're doing the same thing. Just because you are incapable of seeing it as an option to do anything against the interests of the corporate overlords who pay your salary, it doesn't mean that we haven't given you legitimate suggestions on what could improve the situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You acknowledge the problem of copyright infringement, then criticize any reasonable measure to combat it, never suggesting a viable alternative of your own."

I know you don't read all the articles you comment on. but surely you couldn't have missed the numerous times that Mike and commenters have suggested that the entertainment industry should give fans what they want: lower prices, fewer restrictions, more conveniences, and more options. Mike even spoke in this article about Accardo not being able to see adaptation of the industry as an option and you're doing the same thing. Just because you are incapable of seeing it as an option to do anything against the interests of the corporate overlords who pay your salary, it doesn't mean that we haven't given you legitimate suggestions on what could improve the situation.

Hulu, Netflix Vudu, etc. Distribution models are evolving. Will it help to dry up piracy? Yes. However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't? Maybe the big players can overcome it, but small start-ups will get slaughtered by pirate sites. So the solution needs to come from both sides of the ledger. Not just the goofy CwF-RtB model that Masnick thinks will save the world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fox is an owner. They delayed their releases for 8 days arbitrarily in an attempt to put more focus on the TV. Hilarity (read: piracy) ensued.

"Netflix"

Just split up their DVD and streaming business since Hollywood overvalues their content.

"Vudu"

Consumer response: "Who?"

"Distribution models are evolving. "

No question. Just not evolving like those in industry want it to.

". However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't? "

So you don't buy bottled water or eat at restaurants? How do used game stores compete with Wal-Mart or Target? How do used book stores compete with libraries and Barnes and Noble?

"Maybe the big players can overcome it, but small start-ups will get slaughtered by pirate sites. "

Newsflash: The small start-ups are usually the "pirate sites". They just change the way the model works and form niche markets. If you really want ideas, look at Nostalgia Critic and his commentary on movies, the plethora of sites dedicated to discussing music and authorized releases, and the number of game sites that post game footage with trailers and downloads of the newest games.

"So the solution needs to come from both sides of the ledger."

Sorry, chief, there's no both sides of the ledger. If you can't compete, get out of that market and then enter when you can. That's economics.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Huh. Was wondering when somebody here would mention Nostalgia Critic. Hopefully this fool won't go on a gander about how, since ThatGuywiththeglasses.com makes so much money using clips from copyrighted works, they should have to give some of it to the copyright cartel; completely ignoring the fact these are all REVIEWS and SATIRE, both legal uses of copyrighted content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fox is an owner. They delayed their releases for 8 days arbitrarily in an attempt to put more focus on the TV. Hilarity (read: piracy) ensued.

Agreed. Pretty fucking stupid. Doesn't give you the right to steal though.

"Netflix"

Just split up their DVD and streaming business since Hollywood overvalues their content.

There may be a lesson learned here. Doesn't make stealing OK, sorry.

"Vudu"

Consumer response: "Who?"

Right. Stealing's easier.

"Distribution models are evolving. "

No question. Just not evolving like those in industry want it to.

What do you mean those in the industry? You?

". However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't? "

So you don't buy bottled water or eat at restaurants? How do used game stores compete with Wal-Mart or Target? How do used book stores compete with libraries and Barnes and Noble?

Go steal something from Walmart or B&N, or even the library. See what happens.

"Maybe the big players can overcome it, but small start-ups will get slaughtered by pirate sites. "

Newsflash: The small start-ups are usually the "pirate sites". They just change the way the model works and form niche markets.

No shit Einstein. That's why a small, start up legit business that wants to go head-to-head with those pirate site will get killed. One pays for content, the other doesn't. See any competitive advantage here?

If you really want ideas, look at Nostalgia Critic and his commentary on movies, the plethora of sites dedicated to discussing music and authorized releases, and the number of game sites that post game footage with trailers and downloads of the newest games.

Don't know the range of stuff you're talking about but even a nincompoop like you must see a difference between those sites and one that downloads a full, uncut version of a copyrighted motion picture or tv show.

"So the solution needs to come from both sides of the ledger."

Sorry, chief, there's no both sides of the ledger. If you can't compete, get out of that market and then enter when you can. That's economics.

No the stealing needs to stop. You are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You mean the stealing done my megacorporations in the guise of Tax Breaks and the current Tea Party ideals? The stealing of PD works by Disney Studios in order to make money, then Vault it? You mean the raping and pillaging of public rights in the name of a few more bucks?

It is greed, plain and simple, that is killing off Big Media. Nothing else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Agreed. Pretty fucking stupid. Doesn't give you the right to steal though."

Well, to point out one important thing, you can't "steal" a show, particularly an episode, that hasn't even been released for sale yet. (Seeing as it just aired.) Also, it seems redundant to say so but as has been pointed out time and time again, file sharing (or "piracy" as you prefer it) is NOT considered stealing. It is by legal definition "copyright infringement". Also, depending on where you live, country wise, it is perfectly legal to do so. Stealing however is illegal everywhere. Also, stealing is an act that DEPRIVES a person of something, in a very physical and literal sense. Just thought I'd point that out.

"There may be a lesson learned here. Doesn't make stealing OK, sorry."

See what I pointed out above, no stealing is going on.

"Right. Stealing's easier."

Actually, no one has said that. Nor was it even remotely implied in the comment you replied to. What was said was a consumer's response when told about Vudu would be "Who?" As in it's not a well known service, at least not in comparison to the more popular offerings (like Netflix or Hulu).

"Go steal something fom Walmart or B&n, or even the library. See what happens."

Yet again, file sharing IS NOT stealing. (It gets old reiterating the same point.) You're not even making a proper analogy. Oh, and no one would steal from a library, libraries freely offer books, videos, etc for a person to take home and use, then return at a later date. As I said though, stealing is illegal everywhere, as such if someone did "steal something from Walmart or B&N" they'd be punished per criminal law. Or maybe not. I've known a few people who did do such things, they were just thrown out of the store and banned for life, no charges were pressed or nothing.

"No the stealing needs to stop. You are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing."

As there's no stealing going on, there's no need for it to stop. And while people are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing, it goes without saying that just because someone produces something does not entitle them to earn any money from it. They might make money, but it's not a guaranteed right. If the market doesn't want what you have to offer, or doesn't feel it's worth what you want, that's the market's choice/decision. Thus you need to either lower your price, or give the people a better reason to buy what you are selling. If you can't/won't, that's your problem. Not theirs.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Someone else has a great response to this so I won't retread that same ground. Link

Also, the post above me (Another AC) has responded while you continue the use of a tired term.

So I won't be responding to the stealing bits. Merely the other parts that make a lot more sense.

"What do you mean those in the industry? You?"

The MPAA, the RIAA and any member of the industries that support copyright legislation in the millions of dollars to screw over the consumers. Does that answer the question, chief?

"Go steal something from Walmart or B&N, or even the library."

Excellent disingenuous argument. Go read those other two arguments. It could change your life if you actually paid attention to them.

" That's why a small, start up legit business that wants to go head-to-head with those pirate site will get killed. One pays for content, the other doesn't. See any competitive advantage here?"

Netflix got killed by Walmart? Blockbuster? Hollywood Video?

You have proof of this?

"Don't know the range of stuff you're talking about but even a nincompoop like you must see a difference between those sites and one that downloads a full, uncut version of a copyrighted motion picture or tv show."

Thank you for admitting you don't get it. You don't understand that people use movies through the fair use doctrine to give new spin and commentary. People share works such as Game of Thrones to tell how the book and the TV show are different and how. Thank you also for admitting that you do not understand how free works helps influence other tangible products. If people didn't pay for the movie and it was an ABC special, I'm sure it would still be popular and influence book sales. People find it on their favorite site, discuss it, see if they like it, and wonder when the DVD is coming out. That's how sharing works. And you don't get it. I find that the saddest part of this, though it's the most enlightening. It tells me if you can't figure out a way to compete, like Netflix did against piracy and Blockbuster, like Evian with free water, like libraries take a copy of a book to preserve it either digitally or in their physical presence away from Barnes and Noble or Borders (oh wait...), then you need to get out of the market and let others who know what they're doing handle it.

"You are not entitled to get something of value that belongs to someone else for nothing."

Then by all means, let's shut down Hollywood. They have no right to make movies based on books or games. They have no right to tell people how to spend their money. They have no right to believe they're entitled to my money that I choose to spend on my entertainment budget per month. They have a right to vie for it. And if they have nothing that I want, I go elsewhere. It's that simple. But this supposed belief that copyright infringement is stealing is beyond ignorant when all evidence proves that piracy improves the quality of goods, increases sales, and leads to better economic output than copyright enforcement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

@Jay

That's the sort of tinfoil hat rant I've been waiting for Jay. Bravo!

What do you not understand about a small start up business? Netflix, Hulu, etc have millions in resources. Small entrepreneurs don't. They can't compete with pirates that don't pay for content. Got it?

Hollywood options book rights all of the time. WTF?

They have no right to tell people how to spend their money. They have no right to believe they're entitled to my money that I choose to spend on my entertainment budget per month. They have a right to vie for it. And if they have nothing that I want, I go elsewhere. It's that simple.

So don't fucking buy it. You're still not entitled to steal it.

But this supposed belief that copyright infringement is stealing is beyond ignorant when all evidence proves that piracy improves the quality of goods, increases sales, and leads to better economic output than copyright enforcement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"What do you not understand about a small start up business? Netflix, Hulu, etc have millions in resources. Small entrepreneurs don't."

You're thinking of now. What happened when they started, with Blockbuster as the main competitor? What happened with Grooveshark, iMeem, Grokster, or anything that came before Spotify that actually competed with free? What has happened when more young movie makers are forgoing Hollywood and finding individual success on Youtube or through independent financing?

They are all competing with free. They found ways besides copyright to finance, produce, direct, and make money off new scarcities rather than distribution.

So you're still either ignoring or missing those people that *are* competing with free and finding their own success.

" You're still not entitled to steal it."

Not stealing, yet again. Stop the misleading argument please. It's already been explained to you enough times. But hey, if you feel it's stealing let's look at how far back that particular rabbit hole goes:

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

In 1985, the Court ruled in Dowling v United States that copyright infringement is not theft, even when dealing with physical objects, such as vinyl records.

While industry bodies might still want to claim it’s still theft there is one simple fact that’s clear. In treating it as theft the benefit would be to the alleged infringer. A higher evidence standard, an independent investigation, legal counsel provided free for the alleged infringer, and vastly smaller penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------
If you still want to commit to equating copyright infringement and theft, feel free, but I've got even more links waiting to show that copyright infringement is not theft of a physical product.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

@jay

If you wish to parse words in order to sleep better at night, that's fine with me. I understand the technical difference. As far as I am concerned taking something of value that doesn't belong to you without compensating its rightful owner is stealing. It's against the law. People can and do go to prison over it. So call it "infringing", call it "sharing" call it whatever you like. I still call it stealing, and so do most of the people who will be voting on the Protect IP Act. We good now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"As far as I am concerned taking something of value that doesn't belong to you without compensating its rightful owner is stealing. It's against the law. People can and do go to prison over it. So call it "infringing", call it "sharing" call it whatever you like. I still call it stealing..."

Well, what concerns you and how you see things is irrelevant. The law has ruled on the matter. So calling if "stealing" is still both incorrect and willful ignorance on your part. It is "copyright infringement". And as has been pointed out, again and again in these comments, it isn't the same as stealing. Nor is it against the law, at least not globally.

"taking something of value that doesn't belong to you without compensating its rightful owner is stealing. It's against the law."

On that count you are correct, if you DEPRIVE someone of an actual item, regardless of what it is, that is indeed theft, which would be stealing. And it is against the law. However, copying something DOES NOT deprive anyone of anything, so as such, it is not stealing. The rightful owner still retains the original item. Thus, yet again, I'm repeating it in the hopes it eventually sinks in, DOES NOT constitute theft/stealing.

"People can an do go to prison over it."

Yes, people do go to prison in regards to actual theft/stealing. So far, with the exception of a few members of the Ninjavideo site, NO ONE has gone to prison for copyright infringement. At least not that I'm aware of. And better said, not the average file sharer. Not sure about people who commit COMMERCIAL copyright infringement, as that is a different and more serious offense. I'm not as well versed on that matter to be honest. But the only example I can think of, is again, ONLY the Ninjavideo people.

"I still call it stealing, and so do most of the people who will be voting on the Protect IP Act. We good now?"

What you call/think/believe in regards to the subject is completely irrelevant. As far as the law of the land is concerned, there is a distinction. And it has been ruled on. Thus what you say doesn't matter. The law proves you wrong. And same goes for the ones who say the same thing as you. The law is clear on the matter. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is clear on the matter. The law is what it is, regardless of whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or not, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

On 22 June 2007 Hew Griffiths was sentenced to 51 months in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. It is noted he will only serve an estimated 15 months as the courts are granting him time served for the three years in Australian custody. Griffiths' sentencing on 22 June 2007, attracted significant attention in Australia, and some attention in the United States and other countries which have recently signed, or are currently negotiating, bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the USA.
Hew Raymond Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008 after having spent six weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it.

Bear in mind, he took a plea bargain. The system is set up to take a plea deal for less time than actually go to court and lose 90% of the time and stay in jail longer.
They had a man sitting in a jail cell that had never been in the US, but exported US law to Australia...

And now the president wants to do that with ACTA, and lobbyists want to enforce PIPA while saying there's nothing to worry about with breaking the internet into smaller more decentralized groups.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The Hew Griffith case was a quite controversial extradition

On 22 June 2007 Hew Griffiths was sentenced to 51 months in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. It is noted he will only serve an estimated 15 months as the courts are granting him time served for the three years in Australian custody. Griffiths' sentencing on 22 June 2007, attracted significant attention in Australia, and some attention in the United States and other countries which have recently signed, or are currently negotiating, bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the USA.
Hew Raymond Griffiths finally returned to Australia on 2 March 2008 after having spent six weeks as an illegal alien in the US immigration detention system following his release from prison on 26 January 2008 (Australia Day). A condition of his repatriation to Australia was that he never again re-enter the United States of America, a country he parenthetically had never visited before being extradited to it.

Bear in mind, he took a plea bargain. The system is set up to take a plea deal for less time than actually go to court and lose 90% of the time and stay in jail longer.
They had a man sitting in a jail cell that had never been in the US, but exported US law to Australia...

And now the president wants to do that with ACTA, and lobbyists want to enforce PIPA while saying there's nothing to worry about with breaking the internet into smaller more decentralized groups.

USA. Land of the free indeed.

So what about the drug kingpins and terrorists who have never set forth in the US? They get a pass too?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So what about the drug kingpins and terrorists who have never set forth in the US? They get a pass too?"

Given the fact that as soon as one "kingpin" is taken down another is set up, the FBI uses criminals to set up other felonious acts, the economic downturns of continued selective enforcement, and the fact that NONE of the bureaus have yet to catch actual terrorists, I would say that's a bust. They don't need a pass, they need a change in the system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So what about the drug kingpins and terrorists who have never set forth in the US? They get a pass too?"

Given the fact that as soon as one "kingpin" is taken down another is set up, the FBI uses criminals to set up other felonious acts, the economic downturns of continued selective enforcement, and the fact that NONE of the bureaus have yet to catch actual terrorists, I would say that's a bust. They don't need a pass, they need a change in the system.

No they haven't caught any (who's in Gitmo, ever hear of a guy named Noriega?) instead we go to where they are and kill them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Hulu, Netflix Vudu, etc. Distribution models are evolving. Will it help to dry up piracy? Yes. However, piracy itself inhibits new start-up distributors. How can a legit distributor who pays license fees compete with the one who doesn't?"

Steam for example was a small startup at first. As someone who regularly and often makes a point to infringe on copyright, I still spend money quite often on Steam. Why? How are they competing against the free sites I download from?
Ease of use. Fair prices. Good deals and sales. More or less good customer service (although, like any other company, they do have some black marks there). Re-download as often as I like (which is the one thing that cinches it for me. All I have to do is log in, right click on the game, and click Download. Whereas, with cyberlockers/p2p, I have to spend time locating a working link).
Hell. I even recently just started playing World of Warcraft, and PAID for it. I've played on private servers before, but the service I get from the legit version is worth the price.

Re: Re: Re:

You didn't answer to the fact that thousands of legal sites were branded CP heavens by a failed seizure process. It breaks the internet, it breaks due process. I'm sure you wouldn't mind your house raided by the police and you arrested for life without due process, would you?

As for the crackhouse analogy, it was well crushed by other syncophants (do I get troll-prize for using the troll word of the month?).

You acknowledge the problem of copyright infringement, then criticize any reasonable measure to combat it, never suggesting a viable alternative of your own.
Or rather you refuse to acknowledge the measures that have been repeated ad nauseam in many tech blogs and outfits like TD. You also seem to close your eyes to the fact that MAFIAA is trying to strangle perfectly viable alternatives that are actually competing with file sharing (Netflix, Hulu etc). What you call reasonable seems to be exactly the opposite. Send me your dictionary, there seems to be a few flaws in the definitions there.

An action can be taken ONLY AFTER the responsible party cannot be located. Guess what? They don't want to be located, because they know what they're doing is illegal and don't want to be caught.
Dude, no seizure conducted by the ICE shitheads even tried to locate the owners. You fail and you just reinforced the point you are trying to 'debunk'.

Ack, you succeeded in breaking your own record of broken arguments, stupidity and trolling. Are you on weed?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You didn't answer to the fact that thousands of legal sites were branded CP heavens by a failed seizure process. It breaks the internet, it breaks due process. I'm sure you wouldn't mind your house raided by the police and you arrested for life without due process, would you?

Breaks the internet. Precisely how? Breaks due process? Bullshit. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies under the Protect IP Act, just as it does to any other civil litigant.

As for the crackhouse analogy, it was well crushed by other syncophants (do I get troll-prize for using the troll word of the month?).

Yes +1 douche points for you. Congrats.

"You acknowledge the problem of copyright infringement, then criticize any reasonable measure to combat it, never suggesting a viable alternative of your own."

Or rather you refuse to acknowledge the measures that have been repeated ad nauseam in many tech blogs and outfits like TD. You also seem to close your eyes to the fact that MAFIAA is trying to strangle perfectly viable alternatives that are actually competing with file sharing (Netflix, Hulu etc). What you call reasonable seems to be exactly the opposite. Send me your dictionary, there seems to be a few flaws in the definitions there.

Newsflash. MPAA members Fox and NBC/U run Hulu. Next....

"An action can be taken ONLY AFTER the responsible party cannot be located. Guess what? They don't want to be located, because they know what they're doing is illegal and don't want to be caught."

Dude, no seizure conducted by the ICE shitheads even tried to locate the owners. You fail and you just reinforced the point you are trying to 'debunk'.

I guess I should point out here that the ICE seizures weren't conducted under the Protect IP Act.

Ack, you succeeded in breaking your own record of broken arguments, stupidity and trolling. Are you on weed?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Breaks the internet. Precisely how? Breaks due process? Bullshit. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies under the Protect IP Act, just as it does to any other civil litigant.

Yes, as it applies without it and ICE is just ignoring it. No really, if there are laws that cover this issue why more laws? Give them even more power with freakish broad words and it'll be fine. Because Govt is always right and never abuses power. Jesus, even with current DMCA there have been severe abusing from MAFIAA or haven't you read about how they send takedown notices against derivative works putting fair use to shambles? But it's typical of the trolls to ignore the collateral damage that would be caused by any anti-piracy legislation. I'm sensible enough to agree that copyright is ok and it is actually needed to prevent commercial use of intellectual works, are you sensible enough to agree that it needs reform to improve fair use, reduce copyright lifespan and allow non-comercial use? I thought you weren't.

Why don't you crawl away and come back when and if lucidity returns.
Since I never lost my lucidity I took the liberty to reply as soon as I saw your comment. I could recommend a psychiatrist for you if you need though. You know, they could help you with your denial issues.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you're saying that Hadopi and the UK Digital Economy Act were also a success?

Bear in mind, I have yet to see a copyright scheme relying on success. Even when the death penalty was a part of the punishment, that didn't stop the copying. But we'll have to see. You don't have a shred of evidence supporting this. But I'd take that bet that enforcement won't stop infringement save for a minor slow down as the people respond to those incentives from government.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you're saying that Hadopi and the UK Digital Economy Act were also a success?

Bear in mind, I have yet to see a copyright scheme relying on success. Even when the death penalty was a part of the punishment, that didn't stop the copying. But we'll have to see. You don't have a shred of evidence supporting this. But I'd take that bet that enforcement won't stop infringement save for a minor slow down as the people respond to those incentives from government.

Admittedly, I'm not as up on the foreign stuff as I should be. But you should check into the results of the crackdown on digital theft in S. Korea. The drop was significant. And it spurred the creation of a great number of legitimate new distribution sources.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The trend of a rise in digital music sales was a result of the J and K pop rise in Korea. As well as a rise in home-grown drama predictions which are very popular in Japan and Korea respectively. Meanwhile piracy has continued with distributed lockers and torrent clients from Japan. So no, there rise of home media in Korea has very little to do with 'piracy' as very other things have to do with it. Considering Piracy is a separate market unrelated to general trends in consumer consumption and distribution.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Admittedly, I'm not as up on the foreign stuff as I should be. But you should check into the results of the crackdown on digital theft in S. Korea. The drop was significant. And it spurred the creation of a great number of legitimate new distribution sources."

Nope. You're relying on an IFPI paper that Karl and I debunked weeks ago.

Karl: But did you notice this little inconsistency?

Recent data indicates that from 2007 to 2008, music piracy increased 52%
- from the Global IP Center whitepaper

The revival of music sales is not solely attributable to the new law, however. Sales rose more steeply between 2007 and 2008, before it came into effect.
- from the Economist article

So, two sources that the A.C. himself posted show a correlation between increased piracy and increased sales

I went through it piece by piece. If someone wants to see it, it's still there in regards to S. Korea.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Once the damage is done it'll be difficult to fix. If by any chance this monstrosity passes into law and no1 is wrongly accused and not more than 10% of the US population is put behind bars over *gasp* file sharing then I'll come here and say how wonderful this shit is. While at that I'll also show my deep gratitude for my country not being an slut for the US and ignoring all this madness =)

The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

Can't believe I'm feeding this troll, my apologies to those who wish we would actually stop the feeding.

Let's break it down so I can get to lunch...

Q:"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property?"
(Bad analogy of real property vs. digital goods - haven't you fallen in this well 300 times too many? Logic foul!)

A:Someone would call the police, an investigation would ensue. The "alleged" stolen property would be seized as evidence and the building would remain standing.

However, you apparently prefer this method:
Complainant: "Hey, I think all those 10 stereos are stolen!"
ICE Director: "Let the wrecking ball fly boys - level this mutha!"
Judicial system: "Guilty on one count of possessing stolen property, Not Guilty on the remaining 9 counts."
ICE Director: "Obviously we handled this directly and correctly!"
Complainant: "Yay for justice being served! Now there will be no more stolen stereos!"
Actual stereo thief: "Whew! that was close! Time to move on to a new venue!"
(Humorous dialogue pointing out that the actual thief is not the where the resources are being directed.)

Q: "It's possible to have a movie blog and/or discussion board without being a vehicle for digital theft."
A: Doubtful assumption, at best. You see, the whole world is freetards and thieves. We've been told so by the content industry so many times, in so many ways, that it would be hard nowadays to even mention a movie title without some lawyer IM'ing me about my infringement of his clients property. Obviously even sites that are legal, in their own country and went to court in that country to prove so - twice(!) - are having a difficult time getting their legal property returned here in the Content Industry of America.

Q: "How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze to minors? Same thing."
A: But, but, THE CHILDREN. No! It's not the same thing you moron! If you need further explanation, try repeating the 1st grade and focus on reading comprehension for 12 years.

Q: "I still haven't heard how the internet will actually be broken."
A: Still to lazy to click on the damn links? No facts for you - ONE YEAR! (Nazi reference! Ok, soup Nazi but I'm taking the full point!)

Q: "Why isn't it broken now?" (Clear citation that the commentator doesn't understand the topic. So trollish!)
A: Obviously your understanding of these matters is no where near the level it needs to be to have any meaningful or insightful contributions to the discussion you so badly want to take part in. (Captain Obvious appears!)

Q: "If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law."
A: The consequence of breaking the law is already spelled out - usually quite clearly - and I can guarantee you that there is no part of the judicial system in the US that says "trying to break the law will result in a consequence of the perpetrator becoming victims of scams, phishing, etc.

REALLY? Just trying to break the law is now an offense?
Suck it up buttercup - you're the King of Fudland!

Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

@Rezendes

Thanks for the rich target environment. It's so long and rambling I only will rub your nose in a few egregious errors:

,i>Q:"So what would happen the real world if the majority of a pawn shop's goods were stolen property?"
(Bad analogy of real property vs. digital goods - haven't you fallen in this well 300 times too many? Logic foul!)

A:Someone would call the police, an investigation would ensue. The "alleged" stolen property would be seized as evidence and the building would remain standing.

By Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Prince George's County Police Chief Roberto L. Hylton took aim again at pawnshops Wednesday, saying at a news conference that he was creating an 11-member task force to investigate the stores and shut down those found to purchase stolen goods.

Flanked by many of his top commanders and County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) at Iverson Mall, Hylton said pawnshops are attracting thieves to Prince George's County and helping fuel an increase in burglaries.

In some cases, Hylton said, the pawnshops display price tags that describe an item but have no item attached to signal to burglars what they should steal and sell.

The task force, to be headed by Maj. Robert Liberati, will include a sergeant and nine officers who have worked as criminal investigators at district stations, authorities said.

The move is an indication that the police department has "taken off the gloves" when it comes to pawnshops, Liberati said. "Business as usual for the pawnshops is over."

Liberati said there were nearly 1.2 million transactions at Prince George's pawnshops in the first six months of this year. He said that the shop owners make a substantial profit reselling stolen items and that thieves who sell to the shops make only about 20 cents on the dollar. The thieves typically use the money to buy drugs, he said.

Officials said the police department and other county authorities have the power to shut down pawn shops if they can prove they are buying stolen goods. Johnson said he would not hesitate to do so.

"From here on out, we are going to close you down," he said, addressing pawn shop owners. "We are going to lock the doors . . . and then you can sue us to have the doors reopened."

As he did at a news conference last week, Hylton displayed a list of the four shops frequented most by pawners in June, saying he considered some of the activity "very irregular." None of those shop owners could be reached for comment, and none has been criminally charged.

Hylton also displayed almost 650 Sylvania high-intensity headlight bulbs, valued at nearly $23,000, which an investigator said were stolen from auto parts stores and later seized from a Hyattsville pawnshop. Officials did not identify the shop because the owner has not been charged.

In another matter, Hylton announced that he was taking 85 police officers on administrative duty and assigning them to work at least one day a week on patrol. The reassignment is part of the department's summer crime initiatives, which include an awareness campaign to prevent shoplifting and a summer camp for area youths, Hylton said.

Q: "If you mean that would-be freeloaders will seek alternative DNS systems (like the ones the so-called internet engineers all currently use) and will some how become victims of scams, phishing, etc- all I can say is that is the consequence of trying to break the law."
A: The consequence of breaking the law is already spelled out - usually quite clearly - and I can guarantee you that there is no part of the judicial system in the US that says "trying to break the law will result in a consequence of the perpetrator becoming victims of scams, phishing, etc.

Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

Wow! Let's try this one more time since you really seem to have difficulty with the English language...

Copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.

Your analogy of pawn shops selling stolen goods (a criminal matter) DOES NOT equate with copyright infringement (a civil matter) in any way, shape, or form. Theft deprives the owner of the item. If I copy a file, the original is still there.

I'm sorry your comprehension of English is such a debilitating factor in your life.

Re: Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

Wow! Let's try this one more time since you really seem to have difficulty with the English language...

Copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT.

OK. Call it getting something of value without compensating the rightful owner, if that makes you feel better about stealing.

Your analogy of pawn shops selling stolen goods (a criminal matter) DOES NOT equate with copyright infringement (a civil matter) in any way, shape, or form. Theft deprives the owner of the item. If I copy a file, the original is still there.

In the end, when you get caught you still go to prison. Just ask Matthew Smith and Phara about the nuance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

"In the end, when you get caught you still go to prison. Just ask Matthew Smith and Phara about the nuance."

Jamie Thomas hasn't and will not go to prison. That other person whose name eludes me at the moment hasn't and won't either. As well as the numerous others who've been "caught" committing copyright infringement (file sharing).

In fact, only recently, with the Ninjavideo case has anyone been in a situation where prison was a possibility.

So yes, there is a difference between copyright infringement and actual theft. No nuance. In fact, the only one not wanting to acknowledge (the court decided) distinction is YOU. The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. So while you keep calling if theft, you keep looking like an idiot/shill/troll.

Hopefully this is the last time someone has to point out to you that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT/STEALING.

The thing for for the Ninjavideo crew is they are being charged with COMMERCIAL copyright infringement. BIG DIFFERENCE. That is saying they profited. Which is something the average file sharer does not do from file sharing/copyright infringement.

I'll stop here. You've outdone any person on any site I've ever visited before as far as not knowing to just drop it when you've been proven wrong. As far as trolls go, you don't appear to be one. Shill/idiot though? Highly likely.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

"In the end, when you get caught you still go to prison. Just ask Matthew Smith and Phara about the nuance."

Jamie Thomas hasn't and will not go to prison. That other person whose name eludes me at the moment hasn't and won't either. As well as the numerous others who've been "caught" committing copyright infringement (file sharing).

In fact, only recently, with the Ninjavideo case has anyone been in a situation where prison was a possibility.

So yes, there is a difference between copyright infringement and actual theft. No nuance. In fact, the only one not wanting to acknowledge (the court decided) distinction is YOU. The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. So while you keep calling if theft, you keep looking like an idiot/shill/troll.

Hopefully this is the last time someone has to point out to you that copyright infringement IS NOT THEFT/STEALING.

The thing for for the Ninjavideo crew is they are being charged with COMMERCIAL copyright infringement. BIG DIFFERENCE. That is saying they profited. Which is something the average file sharer does not do from file sharing/copyright infringement.

I'll stop here. You've outdone any person on any site I've ever visited before as far as not knowing to just drop it when you've been proven wrong. As far as trolls go, you don't appear to be one. Shill/idiot though? Highly likely.

Jay, the discussion is about the Protect IP Act. It targets COMMERCIAL infringing, not users. That's the discussion here. Jamie Thomas won't go to prison, but has a hell of a debt to pay. Parse away. Obviously the word stealing makes you uncomfortable. Too bad. You take something of value without compensating the rightful owner you are a thief. You haven't convinced me, nor more than one Senator and one representative that there is any meaningful distinction.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

You haven't convinced me, nor more than one Senator and one representative that there is any meaningful distinction.

Too bad for you, those aren't the people that count. If the majority does not consider it stealing (after all, they're neither as dumb or paid as you), all your laws won't make a difference. As you will find out soon enough. OTOH, you have a weird idea of what constitues "overwhelming success"...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The bulldozer, the troll, and the king...

"Jay, the discussion is about the Protect IP Act. It targets COMMERCIAL infringing, not users. That's the discussion here. Jamie Thomas won't go to prison, but has a hell of a debt to pay. Parse away. Obviously the word stealing makes you uncomfortable. Too bad. You take something of value without compensating the rightful owner you are a thief. You haven't convinced me, nor more than one Senator and one representative that there is any meaningful distinction."

That's not me. I always sign in and use avatar. Still, the AC does bring up the same points. I'd still say if you're talking about Biden, who said the same thing, he's a plagiarist, which hurts his position. He took something of value, tried to make it his own and was caught.

Re: PIPA is fail

The British already tried what you are trying to push with Protect IP. They even tested their version for about a year and found it totally unworkable and a detriment to innovation and small businesses.

Have a read here and then tell us how well this kludge of a law will actually work...

If the Brits can't make it work and killed theirs off last month, why should we waste the time, money, and resources to try the same failed experiment when the evidence already shows it won't work at all?

Re: Re: PIPA is fail

The British already tried what you are trying to push with Protect IP. They even tested their version for about a year and found it totally unworkable and a detriment to innovation and small businesses.

Have a read here and then tell us how well this kludge of a law will actually work...

If the Brits can't make it work and killed theirs off last month, why should we waste the time, money, and resources to try the same failed experiment when the evidence already shows it won't work at all?

Sorry, I missed the part about where the money was cut off. You know, ad networks and payment processors. That's where the teeth are. Because for the pirates, it's all about the money.

Re: Re: Re: PIPA is fail

...Sorry, I missed the part about where the money was cut off. You know, ad networks and payment processors. That's where the teeth are. Because for the pirates, it's all about the money.

What does that have to do with the fact that the law cannot be implemented? In case you didn't actually read the article, perhaps this might shine some light for your benefit:

...In the course of evaluating the Act, the government decided not to implement the site blocking provisions of sections 17 and 18, finding them to be not only impractical but harmful to legitimate innovation and users’ interests:

After a year of extensive analysis of the Digital Economy Act, Ofcom—Britain’s telecommunications regulator, which has primary responsibility for the Internet—concluded that the site blocking provisions were unworkable.
In a report[2] released in May 2011, Ofcom found that due to the “practical challenges arising from the current state of site blocking technologies and internet governance,” combined with the “need for a process which is fair to the legitimate interests of site operators and end users,” the process would not provide the “speed and flexibility” necessary to allow it to operate effectively.
Moreover, Ofcom expressed strong concerns about “the risk of over-blocking” and the burdens of the legal processes for both users and ISPs.
Based on Ofcom’s conclusions, Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, Industry and Skills, announced on 3 August 2011 that the government would not implement sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act

Re: Re: Re: PIPA is fail

Oh money? Never received a dime for sharing. Or paid anything. It's all about the money MAFIAA thug? That coming from you? Thug.

The amusing part is that as the efforts to strangle file sharing increase we are moving away from centralized solutions to the point we won't need them. Ah it'll be amusing to see you fellas trying to bring down a network of millions of peers that needs to have them all taken down to actually shut it entirely down.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is fail

Re:

> So what would happen the real world if the majority of a
> pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut
> down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze
> to minors? Same thing.

Pawned merchandise and liquor aren't speech.

No matter how many times you trot out these tired examples, your 'well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette' approach to IP enforcement doesn't work when it comes to speech, according to about 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

Re: Re:

> So what would happen the real world if the majority of a
> pawn shop's goods were stolen property? It would be shut
> down. How about a liquor store who repeatedly sold booze
> to minors? Same thing.

Pawned merchandise and liquor aren't speech.

Neither is pirated movies free speech.

No matter how many times you trot out these tired examples, your 'well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette' approach to IP enforcement doesn't work when it comes to speech, according to about 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

You ignore the fact that under both current law and the proposed Protect IP Act, the targeted websites all have the same rights afforded any other civil litigant.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No one said they are. The speech we're talking about is all the legitimate non-pirated movie speech that gets incidentally shut down when ICE takes a domain name offline. For example.

Dummy If you use your car to deliver a pound of marijuana and get caught your car is subject to immediate confiscation and later to forfeiture. No one cares that you use it for lawful purposes 99% of the time. Nor can you avoid seizure of your website that engages in criminal infringement just because you also have a blog that appears there as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Again, because you don't seem to get this: your car is not speech.

How about this Masnick. First I paint "Impeach Obama" on the side of my car. Then I get busted with a pound of marijuana. By your tortured logic, mu vehicle should be immune from seizure. That's idiocy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How about this Masnick. First I paint "Impeach Obama" on the side of my car. Then I get busted with a pound of marijuana. By your tortured logic, mu vehicle should be immune from seizure. That's idiocy.

I have never made that argument at all. Why do you lie? I never said they were immune from seizure. Just that there's a higher standard.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You ignore the fact that under both current law and the proposed Protect IP Act, the targeted websites all have the same rights afforded any other civil litigant"

That's an outright lie. Or else, they would be able to face the accuser (ie the government) before prior restraint of their website occurs.

That's simply untrue Jay. A seizure is the "arrest" of property. If you use your car to deliver illegal drugs and the cops stop you, both the car and drugs are confiscated. The car, like the website was being used to facilitate a crime. Only after the car was seized is their a forfeiture hearing. You should read Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for yourself, instead of accusing me of lying because I reveal a fact that you dislike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me repeat again. That is a lie.

Rojadirecta was accused of no crimes, but somehow their site was infringing. You can cite the Rule from the FBI handbook all you want, but since the government has taken this aggressive stance they have not had to answer the long, drawn out process which are the domain seizures. They have not answered how they obtained warrants in the domain seizures. They have not answered the rules of how the seizure by its very nature is prior restraint. There have been no adversarial hearings, and quite frankly, this is not a drug crime. They have done something that, while unprecedented, has shown to be incredibly fruitless, ruining people's lives for the sake of Hollywood wanting to turn the clock to the 80s when they were in control of the VCR market.

So until the questions are met, discussed openly and the FBI at the very least allows people to meet the crimes alleged in open court before a domain is seized, your citation of the book is more a deception, intended to make it seem like the rules are "fair". They aren't since NO domain holder had a chance to meet the crimes they were accused of (or even their website's crimes) before it was taken.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me repeat again. That is a lie.

Rojadirecta was accused of no crimes, but somehow their site was infringing. You can cite the Rule from the FBI handbook all you want, but since the government has taken this aggressive stance they have not had to answer the long, drawn out process which are the domain seizures. They have not answered how they obtained warrants in the domain seizures. They have not answered the rules of how the seizure by its very nature is prior restraint. There have been no adversarial hearings, and quite frankly, this is not a drug crime. They have done something that, while unprecedented, has shown to be incredibly fruitless, ruining people's lives for the sake of Hollywood wanting to turn the clock to the 80s when they were in control of the VCR market.

So until the questions are met, discussed openly and the FBI at the very least allows people to meet the crimes alleged in open court before a domain is seized, your citation of the book is more a deception, intended to make it seem like the rules are "fair". They aren't since NO domain holder had a chance to meet the crimes they were accused of (or even their website's crimes) before it was taken.

Jay, you can continue to be in denial all you like. It's not a rule from the FBI handbook. It is Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those are judicial, not law enforcement. The Rules of Civil Procedure have all passed Constitutional muster and govern how civil law is administered in this country.

You only make a laughingstock of yourself when you refuse to accept the clear factual evidence placed in front of you. I mean, this is embarrassing. This is the sort of shit I expect from Marcus or one of the other dummies. Read the law Jay. Then come back and explain how it isn't applied in the Roja, NV and other cases.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So let's get this straight...

They began a preliminary motion, that was an injunction for how long agains the domains? Where's the end date on this?

Then where is the "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition"?

Not like the sites were going anywhere or being shut down. And when have the sites been heard? In a year and a half since these take downs?

Further looking into this why has no information come out about the seizures, particularly Ninjavideo and TVShack when the FOIA Act was supposed to reveal information about them?

Obviously, it's another amount of smoke and mirrors. You've been quite good at saying all of this depends on just one Rule of law. That just opens more questions than answers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

They began a preliminary motion, that was an injunction for how long agains the domains? Where's the end date on this?

How the fuck should I know? I'm not the Clerk of Courts.

Then where is the "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition"?

See above.

Not like the sites were going anywhere or being shut down. And when have the sites been heard? In a year and a half since these take downs?

Further looking into this why has no information come out about the seizures, particularly Ninjavideo and TVShack when the FOIA Act was supposed to reveal information about them?

What FOIA? Did Masnick file one on these cases as well. Someone has to file a FOIA, they don't just happen. Is you're so interested why don't you do it.

Obviously, it's another amount of smoke and mirrors. You've been quite good at saying all of this depends on just one Rule of law. That just opens more questions than answers.

At least now you know what Rule 65 is. I await your lavish apology for calling me a liar. Thanks for revealing how full of shit you are. But I guess we already knew it, but now it should be apparent to you as well.

Now instead of staying up all night obsessing about this, why don't you do some man stuff like watch a football game or something.

The rule explained nothing. It didn't explain how they could misinterpret the law, the length by which they had to charge or indict, how this assists with the seizure, what rules were used for the domain seizures or anything.

If you want an apology for smoke and mirrors, this rule does nothing for it. It's sad that an open court has to figure this stuff out because even the law is vague about the rules for prior restraint.

The rule explained nothing. It didn't explain how they could misinterpret the law, the length by which they had to charge or indict, how this assists with the seizure, what rules were used for the domain seizures or anything.

Try further research on case law. Just because you're unable to understand doesn't render anything invalid.

If you want an apology for smoke and mirrors, this rule does nothing for it. It's sad that an open court has to figure this stuff out because even the law is vague about the rules for prior restraint.

Jay, any rule of law is further articulated by judicial decisions. If you're really that interested, pirate a law book or take a class. It's all out there and there's no denying it or wishing it away simply because you don't like it or understand it.

Re:

Right now, PROTECT-IP is operating on the general principle of:
A Wal-mart sold booze to a minor. Let's close the whole STORE down, with no chance of appeal for months/years on end.

Or even:
A Wal-mart sold booze to a minor. Let's close the whole CHAIN down, with no chance of appeal for months/years on end.

What we're objecting to is the multiple-level stupidity of PROTECT-IP here. Firstly, it's utterly disproportionate here. There are no *stolen* goods. There are no minors being 'harmed'. Secondly, it's ineffective as other than a harrassment option - new domain names will just come online, the servers are intact, so it's not stopping anything, just being a pain to the organisers. Thirdly, it's utterly un-Constitutional to stop all the other free speech just because some *might* be infringing.

Re: Re:

Firstly, it's utterly disproportionate here. There are no *stolen* goods. There are no minors being 'harmed'.

The site operators are enriching themselves using someone else's content for which they have not compensated the rightful owner.

Secondly, it's ineffective as other than a harrassment option - new domain names will just come online, the servers are intact, so it's not stopping anything, just being a pain to the organisers.

Why you ignore the aspect of cutting off the flow of money (ad networks and payment processors) eludes me. And you also assume a large percentage of opportunistic infringers will use technical work arounds to access sites that are delisted from search engines. I don't see it.

Thirdly, it's utterly un-Constitutional to stop all the other free speech just because some *might* be infringing.

You are utterly clueless. What happens when one of these sites gets a DMCA takedown notice? They ignore it. So then what?

Re: Re: Re:

"Why you ignore the aspect of cutting off the flow of money (ad networks and payment processors) eludes me. And you also assume a large percentage of opportunistic infringers will use technical work arounds to access sites that are delisted from search engines. I don't see it. "

That's right, you don't see how they've been given no due process to answer the crimes either.

"You are utterly clueless. What happens when one of these sites gets a DMCA takedown notice? They ignore it. So then what?"

Have any proof of DMCA takedown notices ignored? Oh wait, the site is down. Guess not.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Have any proof of DMCA takedown notices ignored? Oh wait, the site is down. Guess not.

Jay. You are truly out of your fucking mind. I'm going to stop responding to you because your arguments have become so unbelievably desperate, I sense you are becoming deeply disturbed by the body of evidence assaulting your core (freeloading) beliefs. So get some rest and get back on your medications. I'm not going to kick you around while you're in such a fragile emotional state. You just worry about getting better. I have plenty of other apologists to slap about while you're recovering.

"Those who profit from piracy want to include unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content in the category of speech."

This right here outlines how delusional the publishing industry is. Distribution of content makes it sound like it's a product and not the communication it is. You don't distribute information, you communicate it. The internet does one thing and one thing only, communication. I find it rather outrageous that there is a such thing as unauthorized communication, as if it is a crime to communicate certain facts.

Also, people who profit from infringement don't say anything at all about it being speech. They don't say anything at all. It's the people who use file sharing networks to get content in a more convenient manner that connotate it with protected speech.

File sharing is like a room full of people which are each having numerous different conversations (like a social gathering such as a party). Some of those groups are having a song conversation. The dialog consists entirely of that song or songs. It's still a conversation and it's still communication, but the industry wants to claim it's no different taking bread from a bakery and distributing it, in whole, to each and everyone in the conversation. If people were gathering in public and speaking in a succession of ones and zeros that amount to say, the movie "Twilight" and people hearing that stream of bits could record it and create a copy of that movie, would that be unprotected speech? Honestly? Or how about this, one person speaks in ones and zeros amounting to a movie file while recording it and then distributes that online where people subsequently accelerate the playback while using speech to text to translate it back into data they can thus convert back into a movie file? Would the initial conversation thus be infringing? How about a more familiar method? How about reading a book aloud in public? Illegal? Why should it be? It's just a conversation between the speaker and the public listening to them.

I personally do not consider infringement the moral violation that the publishers consider it and it shouldn't be illegal to copy something that was created off of all the works existing in the public domain before the likes of Disney ever decided to rip off Snow White from the public domain. If they want to stay relevant in this market, they should start selling their labor instead of trying to sell what already belongs to the public. Yes, all art belongs to the public domain, that's why copyright is "temporary". Well, as temporary as the lifetime of the author can be considered temporary.

"Those who find piracy beneficial to society want to include unauthorized conversations of copyrighted information in the category of speech."

I will boysott any Politician who sings yes for PROTECT-IP and I will also write a nice hate letter to each and every one.
Then I will go to the ACLU and see if I can sue this Government over this silly asshole law.I am an artist and I freely give out my art.I have a half dozen torrents on TPB of my music and it is all free.
PROTECT-IP makes it so my fans and fans of other bands like mine can not get our music out on a P2P for free.
I will sue them for taking away my exposure and the exposure of thousands of other INDIE artists who make art,films,music, and books and love to share their stuff for free.
I HATE THIS FUCKEN GOVERNMENT !!!
I would not be sad if there was a 2nd Revolution in this country.I have no sympathy at all for any of the current politicians.I so want to see them all gone in a big way.
FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS !!!!
You both suck shit and you both are destroying our great Nation.Our forefathers must be turning in their graves right now.SHAME ON YOU>

Re:

I will boysott any Politician who sings yes for PROTECT-IP and I will also write a nice hate letter to each and every one.
Then I will go to the ACLU and see if I can sue this Government over this silly asshole law.I am an artist and I freely give out my art.I have a half dozen torrents on TPB of my music and it is all free.
PROTECT-IP makes it so my fans and fans of other bands like mine can not get our music out on a P2P for free.
I will sue them for taking away my exposure and the exposure of thousands of other INDIE artists who make art,films,music, and books and love to share their stuff for free.
I HATE THIS FUCKEN GOVERNMENT !!!
I would not be sad if there was a 2nd Revolution in this country.I have no sympathy at all for any of the current politicians.I so want to see them all gone in a big way.
FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS !!!!
You both suck shit and you both are destroying our great Nation.Our forefathers must be turning in their graves right now.SHAME ON YOU

Thank you very much for this gift. Once again affirming that the opponents of the Protect IP Act are nuttier than squirrel shit.

A observation for you numbnuts. You and Marcus can continue to plague humankind by continuing to freely distribute your "work". Only difference is that it will be harder for anyone to pirate it...... as if.

Re: Re:

Nuttier than squirrel shit was funny. +1 for that.

But that would apply for copywrong morons like you too. Reminds me of the Guardian (was it the Guardian?) guy advocating against anonymity and using Thomas Paine quotes when Paine and friends used it in their time. Priceless.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

While the way s/he wrote it does anger my "Use Proper English grammar and spelling" brain, pretty much everything he said was correct.
Did you know that my ISP blocks Piratebay? I presume you didn't. The block was instigated by the copyright cartel. Thanks to them, I can't get at this guy's freely distributed music.
Plus, you made a horrible mistake. You GENERALIZED. You looked at ONE commenter and assumed that all of us who oppose Protect IP are nuts. There have been few occasions where I have felt so insulted. I bet you're the type, who, after getting mugged by a (insert race here) then goes on to assume that all members of (insert race here) are thieves and thugs.

Re: Re: Re:

While the way s/he wrote it does anger my "Use Proper English grammar and spelling" brain, pretty much everything he said was correct.
Did you know that my ISP blocks Piratebay? I presume you didn't. The block was instigated by the copyright cartel. Thanks to them, I can't get at this guy's freely distributed music.

So you can't get this guy's music from a specific source? Awwww.
Maybe this loser should post it on a site not dedicated to infringing activity. Though I'd guess you're probably better off without it.

Plus, you made a horrible mistake. You GENERALIZED. You looked at ONE commenter and assumed that all of us who oppose Protect IP are nuts.

Trust me, I've looked at far more than one. Same conclusion.

There have been few occasions where I have felt so insulted.

What kind of pantywaist are you, anyway? Are you really such a thin-skinned Nancyboy that you take personal offense at something like this?

I bet you're the type, who, after getting mugged by a (insert race here) then goes on to assume that all members of (insert race here) are thieves and thugs.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So you can't get this guy's music from a specific source? Awwww.
Maybe this loser should post it on a site not dedicated to infringing activity. Though I'd guess you're probably better off without it."

So, despite the fact the musician above is more than likely not affiliated with the copyright cartel, s/he must post music only on sites approved by them?

"Trust me, I've looked at far more than one. Same conclusion."
Why should I trust you? You've said things that don't inspire trust in you.

"What kind of pantywaist are you, anyway? Are you really such a thin-skinned Nancyboy that you take personal offense at something like this?"
Not thin skinned. It takes a lot to get me to a boiling rage. However, I do feel insulted when I am judged to be insane merely because a fellow supporter of a particular legal viewpoint does or says something a little crazy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So you can't get this guy's music from a specific source? Awwww.
Maybe this loser should post it on a site not dedicated to infringing activity. Though I'd guess you're probably better off without it."

So, despite the fact the musician above is more than likely not affiliated with the copyright cartel, s/he must post music only on sites approved by them?

No one said approved by anyone. Just on a site that doesn't illegally distribute copyrighted content.

"Trust me, I've looked at far more than one. Same conclusion."

Why should I trust you? You've said things that don't inspire trust in you.

Now you've hurt my feelings.

"What kind of pantywaist are you, anyway? Are you really such a thin-skinned Nancyboy that you take personal offense at something like this?"

Not thin skinned. It takes a lot to get me to a boiling rage. However, I do feel insulted when I am judged to be insane merely because a fellow supporter of a particular legal viewpoint does or says something a little crazy.

Not thin-skinned? If that's all it takes to get you "to a boiling rage", then you have issues.... which leads me to think that my characterization was spot on.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Umm, there are different levels to the emotion anger you know. I would characterize them as annoyance, feeling insulted, pissed-off, angry and then most likely murderous rage.
I am not thin skinned. I have already stated that it does take a lot to get me angry. What you said earlier in lumping opponents of Protect IP...I would say that falls in the "insulted" range. Just like if somebody were to come up to me and ask me what beer I drink: I would feel insulted, because they would be generalizing about me being Irish (I don't drink, by the way).

"No one said approved by anyone. Just on a site that doesn't illegally distribute copyrighted content. "
Sites like the Internet Archive? Thanks to efforts by the recording industry, sites like the Internet Archive are deemed illegal rogue sites, just like the Piratebay. They judge one site because of the actions of another (a practice you are also guilty of here in the comments).
Let me spell it out to you. The recording industry took my ISP to court and had Piratebay blocked. Now, I can't get access to a ton of legal content. This is what I and others are so up in arms about over Protect IP. The collateral damage. The blocking of legitimate speech, legitimate content, when trying to block illegitimate content.

"Now you've hurt my feelings". Either you're being sarcastic here, or your sense of self-worth is at an all time low. All I said there was I don't trust you. An accurate statement given that you have given me no reason to trust you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Umm, there are different levels to the emotion anger you know. I would characterize them as annoyance, feeling insulted, pissed-off, angry and then most likely murderous rage.

I am not thin skinned. I have already stated that it does take a lot to get me angry. What you said earlier in lumping opponents of Protect IP...I would say that falls in the "insulted" range. Just like if somebody were to come up to me and ask me what beer I drink: I would feel insulted, because they would be generalizing about me being Irish (I don't drink, by the way).

Wow. All of the Irish I know are a bunch of pie-eyed, bandy legged sots who feel naked without a beer in their hand. (Relax, I'm of Irish heritage too and am kidding)

"No one said approved by anyone. Just on a site that doesn't illegally distribute copyrighted content. "

Sites like the Internet Archive? Thanks to efforts by the recording industry, sites like the Internet Archive are deemed illegal rogue sites, just like the Piratebay. They judge one site because of the actions of another (a practice you are also guilty of here in the comments).

So does the Internet Archive facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted content or not?

Let me spell it out to you. The recording industry took my ISP to court and had Piratebay blocked. Now, I can't get access to a ton of legal content. This is what I and others are so up in arms about over Protect IP. The collateral damage. The blocking of legitimate speech, legitimate content, when trying to block illegitimate content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

According to MAFIAA even artists distributing their own music are facilitating illegal distribution. They are arseholes =)

If an artist sells the exclusive rights to his creation, it's no longer his to exploit. If I sell you my car I don't retain the right to drive it do I?

I know being a foreigner that there may be a language issue, so I'll assume for the time being that you aren't simply an imbecile. BTW, I don't see people in the US obsessed with Hadopi or the Digital Economy Act. Feel free to mind your own fucking business.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Pirate bay cannot stop distributing infringing content, its the people using the service who has to stop. You clearly made a point there but their core purpose of the site is to share they are not self hosting those infringing content; now are they?

Re: Re: Re:

Yep, they're all crazy, all those tech guys who actually know how the Internet works, all those venture capitalists and all those entrepreneurs, all nuttier than squirril shit, every single one of them.

Many of those venture capitalists are involved in companies embroiled in IP disputes, what do you think they'd say? The tech guys already use the alternative DNS they claim will "break the internet" and their definition of breaking the internet is that users of alternate DNS are going to be exploited by weak security. Which, in my mind is just desserts for wannabe lawbreakers. The so-called tech entrepreneurs are a joke. They include people themselves involved in infringement.... and of course Masnick. Draw your own conclusion.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So-called tech entrepreneurs? You do know what an entrepreneur is? Someone who runs a business enterprise through risk and innovation.
So...people like Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt...all of them took risks with technology. Eric in particular is a named opponent of Protect IP.
Yet, at the same time, Eric Schmidt, through Google and Youtube, has bent over backwards to aid copyright holders. Youtube cancels accounts if you're ACCUSED three times of infringement. One of my favorite reviewers and critics, SFDebris, received two warnings, despite the fact that he is covered by fair use laws when he showed clips in his reviews.

Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

...Thank you very much for this gift. Once again affirming that the opponents of the Protect IP Act are nuttier than squirrel shit.

A observation for you numbnuts. You and Marcus can continue to plague humankind by continuing to freely distribute your "work". Only difference is that it will be harder for anyone to pirate it...... as if.

And I am certain HER Majesty's government will look on your assertions with favor.

The Brits already tried this and it utterly, and completely failed with a year's testing invested. Are you seriously saying we should waste the time and money to repeat a failed experiment in these economic times?

Though I already posted this above, it is worth re-posting in the hopes that this will get through the block of stone you call a head...

Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

"...Thank you very much for this gift. Once again affirming that the opponents of the Protect IP Act are nuttier than squirrel shit.

A observation for you numbnuts. You and Marcus can continue to plague humankind by continuing to freely distribute your "work". Only difference is that it will be harder for anyone to pirate it...... as if."

And I am certain HER Majesty's government will look on your assertions with favor.

The Brits already tried this and it utterly, and completely failed with a year's testing invested. Are you seriously saying we should waste the time and money to repeat a failed experiment in these economic times?

Though I already posted this above, it is worth re-posting in the hopes that this will get through the block of stone you call a head...

Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

That is secondary and irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not PIPA is:

1. Unworkable
2. A waste of tax payers money
3. A waste of technical talent
4. Over-reaching and open for abuse on a grand scale

Please, crawl back under the rock you are living under and stop trying to waste my tax dollars on another Government boondoggle that will ultimately fail, and fail spectacularly. There are much more urgent and cost effective things the government should be working on and PIPA is simply not one of them...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

That is secondary and irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not PIPA is:

1. Unworkable
2. A waste of tax payers money
3. A waste of technical talent
4. Over-reaching and open for abuse on a grand scale

Please, crawl back under the rock you are living under and stop trying to waste my tax dollars on another Government boondoggle that will ultimately fail, and fail spectacularly. There are much more urgent and cost effective things the government should be working on and PIPA is simply not one of them...

It's not secondary or irrelevant. No ad revenue, no Paypal, Visa, AMEX, etc means no money coming in. The British measures failed because they were half-measures. And the good news for you on the tax dollars issue is that the House bill has a broader provision for a private right of action which should place more of the financial burden on the rightsholder. There. Happy now?

Jay, what payment processor will be viable if they engage in funding illegal activity? Remember it's banks that issue credit cards for the most part, the processors just process. Banks simply won't use XX processor if they're shady. Why would they. As far as Bitcoin and the like, well good luck with that going mainstream.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

"Jay, what payment processor will be viable if they engage in funding illegal activity"

You're missing the point deliberately it seems. If people can't use Visa, Amex, or Mastercard, they'll use Paypal. If they can't use Paypal, they'll switch to Bitcoin or Flattr. If those begin to expose their details, people move more and more underground to less reputable sites.

It's like no one's taught you the first rule of economics:

People respond to incentives. Also, Isaac Newton's Third Law explains the exact same thing: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

Also, there's other alternatives than Bitcoin. I know quite a few different ones. Bitcoins just so happens to be the most popular currently.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

"Jay, what payment processor will be viable if they engage in funding illegal activity"

You're missing the point deliberately it seems. If people can't use Visa, Amex, or Mastercard, they'll use Paypal. If they can't use Paypal, they'll switch to Bitcoin or Flattr. If those begin to expose their details, people move more and more underground to less reputable sites.

OK Jay. what percentage of people? Nothing like the percentage that use mainstream payment processors. And if a payment processor knowingly opens itself to facilitating criminal transactions a whole new world of problems opens to them. Bring it on.

It's like no one's taught you the first rule of economics:

People respond to incentives.

And deterrents. Otherwise I'd just walk into the bank and walk out with a stack of hundreds tomorrow.

Also, Isaac Newton's Third Law explains the exact same thing: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

Are you fucking kidding me? You suggest an immutable law of physics applies to human behavior? Check your dosage.

Also, there's other alternatives than Bitcoin. I know quite a few different ones. Bitcoins just so happens to be the most popular currently.

Good. Use them until your heart's content. But don't come sniveling when Yuri empties your account or steals your identity.

PIPA is FAIL! Yep...

"OK Jay. what percentage of people? Nothing like the percentage that use mainstream payment processors. And if a payment processor knowingly opens itself to facilitating criminal transactions a whole new world of problems opens to them. Bring it on."

What percentage of people moved from Blockbuster to Netflix to "rogue sites?" Why does a percentage matter? It doesn't. The point has been that people are going to move to more alternatives than traditional banking and I'm sure that service providers will respond accordingly. All the enforcement will do is decentralize the money.

"And deterrents."

So has filesharing increased or decreased with the passage of the NET Act, DMCA and all other copyright bills? And given that the death penalty was a deterrent before, it hasn't worked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

And for those who want to buy and can't, they can go fuck themselves, right?

Let's take a look at a series by Disney called Gargoyles. It's a kids show, and I wanted to buy it for my niece. And I can't find it anywhere as a complete set, because some fucknugget decided it wasn't a seller.

So here's my suggestion: I'm betting that people would be willing to pay a small premium in order to get the missing episodes on DVD without having to resort to quasi-legal methods, such as importing from a country where it was released as such.

Until that happens, there will always, without fail, be a market for needs not being met.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

And for those who want to buy and can't, they can go fuck themselves, right?

Let's take a look at a series by Disney called Gargoyles. It's a kids show, and I wanted to buy it for my niece. And I can't find it anywhere as a complete set, because some fucknugget decided it wasn't a seller.

So here's my suggestion: I'm betting that people would be willing to pay a small premium in order to get the missing episodes on DVD without having to resort to quasi-legal methods, such as importing from a country where it was released as such.

Until that happens, there will always, without fail, be a market for needs not being met.

So you have an unalienable right to be able to obtain whatever stupid TV show you want? Or if the owner doesn't make it available you're somehow justified in stealing it. Please. It's entertainment asshole.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

And you didn't know that dancing is illegal there? Intriguing...

Yeah, I remember now. A bunch of douches protesting a Federal judge's ruling that dancing as a form of protest at the Jefferson Monument was not protected speech. Pretty fucking stupid. The judge's order is the judge's order. If a federal judge says something, you'd be wise to treat it like it just came from the Burning Bush. Why not haul in the ACLU? Instead a bunch of soft, white "activists" get to spend the night in the DC jail. That's pretty dumb. And what did they gain? Zip.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

So, the entitlement to compensation is determined by the desire for compensation? Is there any level of compensation that the originator in that situation isn't entitled to, even if they desire it?

I don't know where you're trying to take this but I'll humor you. One is entitled to receive the market price for a good or service. The originator is entitled to receive whatever compensation the market will bear. Market price is the intersection of the demand and supply curve.

Now that I have answered your stupid question, I have one for you. The "rubberpants" moniker; is that like some pervert fetish thing or do you have bladder control issues?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

I don't know where you're trying to take this but I'll humor you. One is entitled to receive the market price for a good or service. The originator is entitled to receive whatever compensation the market will bear. Market price is the intersection of the demand and supply curve.

Indeed. Of course, the fact that you won't admit is that the *supply* of content, when digital, is infinite, and the intersection of the demand and supply curve then hits at a price of zero.

But, as soon as the market tries to push the price to the market price, folks hire you to put in place protectionist regulations that create monopoly rents and keep the price from ever getting anywhere near market price -- thus decreasing the overall market and the economy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

Mike this is really a half baked argument. First, pricing also has a lot to do with alternatives. In a piracy free world, if Sony prices it's movies at $40 and Warner prices its movies at $5 then people will substitute Warner motion pictures for those of Sony. If all of the studios overprice their product then people will listen to music, watch free TV or play board games. But because of the easy, open access to cheap or free content that is illegally distributed the whole market gets turned on its ear. And I still don't understand how any of this justifies one to unlawfully get something of value without compensating its owner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

" If all of the studios overprice their product then people will listen to music, watch free TV or play board games."

What's stopping people from doing that now?

"But because of the easy, open access to cheap or free content that is illegally distributed the whole market gets turned on its ear. "

Misleading at worst, strawman at best. First you talk about how there's other alternatives in place, then you're trying to insinuate that all people move to download when they may find the free alternatives to overpriced goods.

"And I still don't understand how any of this justifies one to unlawfully get something of value without compensating its owner"

Have you looked into why the CD is no longer a viable market for the RIAA? It still does well, but people like mp3s instead of full CDs. And when people FINALLY had good alternatives, instead of being called thieves, the industry made money on it. So people's attitudes and tastes change. The industry has to find ways to meet those people's demands or they will go elsewhere. It's really that simple. The industries aren't entitled to money. They provide a service, same as a pirate does. If the pirate provides a better service, they get the rewards.

Also, sidenote, the US' history was greatly influenced by piracy. The fact is, when the US didn't respect foreign copyrights on books, our book industry flourished and we had more material to work with.

There's also been research that piracy improves products. You don't have to look further than Steam to understand that in the game markets.

And somehow, I think you skip how "compensation" doesn't always necessarily mean "monetary"...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PIPA is FAIL!

But because of the easy, open access to cheap or free content that is illegally distributed the whole market gets turned on its ear.

Ah, so you have no knowledge of how technological disruption works. Lemme help you out: when cars were introduced, red flag laws were passed to make it illegal to drive one without someone walking in front of them waving a red flag. What is "illegal" is often just what the legacy industry is afraid of. Of course, since you *work for* that legacy industry, getting you to understand this is obviously tricky. But it's something you'll come to grips with.

And I still don't understand how any of this justifies one to unlawfully get something of value without compensating its owner.

I never said it did. I've never said that infringement is justified. Why even bring that up? I was just explaining basic economics to you.

"But because of the easy, open access to cheap or free content that is illegally distributed the whole market gets turned on its ear."

Ah, so you have no knowledge of how technological disruption works. Lemme help you out: when cars were introduced, red flag laws were passed to make it illegal to drive one without someone walking in front of them waving a red flag. What is "illegal" is often just what the legacy industry is afraid of. Of course, since you *work for* that legacy industry, getting you to understand this is obviously tricky. But it's something you'll come to grips with.

Digital redistribution of stolen content doesn't really have an historical counterpart to infer the affect on markets. And certainly the example you cited has little bearing.

FWIW I do advocate for changing distribution models. But that simply doesn't happen overnight. I don't think purely ad supported free distribution is going to work for companies that actually have to recover production costs. I expect to see the continued rise of Netflix-type sites with a la carte distribution. There's a lot of push to replicate the cable tv model on the internet but I think that's weakening a bit.The other sports are watching MLB and the NBA. It would really hasten the transition of the NFL and college sports would aggressively move to wider a la carte models. I hold more hope for the NFL than college sports due to the concentration of power by the NFL. Who knows.

And I never said that YOU stated infringement is justified. Infringement is not justified and laws are needed to address it.

Digital redistribution of stolen content doesn't really have an historical counterpart to infer the affect on markets. And certainly the example you cited has little bearing.

Haha. Well, the problem is your FALSE use of "stolen." It breaks the law, just as driving a car without a person walking in front of it once broke the law. The historical counterparts are there. Your inability to see them... well... not really my problem.

FWIW I do advocate for changing distribution models. But that simply doesn't happen overnight.

Someone fails to understand history. No, it doesn't happen "overnight," but you know what is proven not to help? Propping up the old system while the disruption is happening. And that's what you're doing. You should be ashamed of yourself for destroying innovation.

And I never said that YOU stated infringement is justified. Infringement is not justified and laws are needed to address it.

If business solve the problem... while enforcement has been shown not to solve the problem... and it's been shown conclusively to have massive negative unintended consequences, can you explain why you claim that "laws are needed to address it"? Because there's no factual basis for your statement.

Phara takes a dive

While delivering the beatdown should be enough, I can't help but to share some other good news(and yes I submitted it as a story):

WASHINGTON - A Nevada woman pleaded guilty today for her role in founding NinjaVideo.net, a website that provided millions of users with the ability to illegally download infringing copies of copyright-protected movies and television programs in high-quality formats. This investigation is being conducted by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center).

Hana A. Beshara, 29, of Las Vegas, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. At sentencing, scheduled for Jan. 6, 2012, Beshara faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on each count.

The guilty plea was announced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton; Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department's Criminal Division; and U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride for the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to court documents, Beshara was one of the founders of NinjaVideo.net, which operated from February 2008 until it was shut down by law enforcement in June 2010. The NinjaVideo.net website allowed visitors to download infringing copies of hundreds of television shows and movies, including those still playing in theaters and some that had not yet been released in theaters. Website visitors could download much of the infringing content for free, but visitors who "donated" at least $25 obtained access to private forum boards that contained a wider range of infringing material.

According to court documents, NinjaVideo.net generated additional income from Internet advertising. Beshara admitted that she negotiated agreements with online advertising entities and received income from them. Beshara admitted that she and her co-conspirators collected more than $500,000 in overall proceeds during the website's two-and-a-half years of operation, with Beshara personally receiving more than $200,000. As part of her plea agreement, Beshara agreed to forfeit assets seized by ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in June 2010, including cash, an investment brokerage account, two bank accounts, a Paypal account and one Internet advertising account.

Beshara, who referred to herself as "Queen Phara" and "the face and the name behind Ninja," was the day-to-day administrator of NinjaVideo.net, according to court documents. In that role, Beshara supervised the website and at times directed the release of infringing copies of specific movies and television shows, including through uploads of copyrighted works by members of the group to computer servers around the world and in the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to the statement of facts, Beshara frequently released podcasts to communicate with the millions of visitors to NinjaVideo.net. In one such podcast, which Beshara entitled "The NinjaVideo Manifesto," Beshara boasted about NinjaVideo's "zero hour releases on TV and movies" - meaning that the website made infringing content available as soon as the legitimate product was released.

On Sept. 9, 2011, Beshara and four other alleged co-conspirators were indicted on six charges related to their work with NinjaVideo.net. Co-defendant Matthew David Howard Smith pleaded guilty on Sept. 23, 2011, to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement, and will be sentenced on Dec. 16, 2011. The remaining three defendants are scheduled for a jury trial on Feb. 6, 2012.

Re: Phara takes a dive

One site and a handful of people...set against the backdrop of thousands of innocent people being caught in the crossfire.
What was that quote again? "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," said English jurist William Blackstone. Yeah, I'm sure the thousands of people who woke up one morning to find "You're a Child Pornographer"/"You're a Thief" splashed all over their carefully constructed web-pages, will feel just dandy now that these few people have been convicted.

"It's the unlawful getting something of value from another without compensation I object to."
I'm pretty sure it was unlawful to sneak in wordings into a Senate bill in the middle of the night to change all of a musician's work into "work-for-hire". Sounds to me like a "What Would Jesus Do?" moment - in this case, wait for an innocent person to cast the first stone, which would certainly not be the copyright cartel, having abused the diplomatic and judicial systems long enough.

Re: Re: Phara takes a dive

One site and a handful of people...set against the backdrop of thousands of innocent people being caught in the crossfire.
What was that quote again? "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," said English jurist William Blackstone. Yeah, I'm sure the thousands of people who woke up one morning to find "You're a Child Pornographer"/"You're a Thief" splashed all over their carefully constructed web-pages, will feel just dandy now that these few people have been convicted.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the judicial system and incarceration. Not sure why you're in such a lather.

"It's the unlawful getting something of value from another without compensation I object to."

I'm pretty sure it was unlawful to sneak in wordings into a Senate bill in the middle of the night to change all of a musician's work into "work-for-hire". Sounds to me like a "What Would Jesus Do?" moment - in this case, wait for an innocent person to cast the first stone, which would certainly not be the copyright cartel, having abused the diplomatic and judicial systems long enough.

If that happened it was wrong. I doubt that any employee of the "copyright cartel" had the ability to edit legislation in such a manner. Sorry, try again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Phara takes a dive

One would think you'd have the good sense to lay low after making laughable claims that pawn shops won't be seized for illegal conduct and that "attempted" crimes don't constitute actual crimes. Nice Fauxleys BTW.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Phara takes a dive

My good sense led to yet another reply.

I suppose it depends on the scale of the crime. You cited one case in Prince George's County.

In San Diego where I live, when they raided a local pawn shop they only found one stolen item out of several items that were claimed to have been stolen. The pawn shop remains open. That was my reference. Laugh all you want, I guess.

I am all too familiar with people who are so myopic that the only thing they see is what they wish to see. Feel free to try reality once in a while - it's even FREE!

Re: Re: Re: Phara takes a dive

"I'm pretty sure he was talking about the judicial system and incarceration. Not sure why you're in such a lather."
These guys from NinjaVideo were convicted, after an investigative operation that directly harmed thousands of innocent people, in having "You're a Child Pornographer/You're a Thief" put up all over their web sites. That's what has me angry.

The guy who did it? Mitch Glazier.http://www.linkedin.com/in/mglazier
Now works for the RIAA. In a top level position for a top level salary after subverting the democratic process by sneaking into Congress in the middle of the night, altering a bill unlawfully in such a way as to benefit his future paymasters. The same paymasters who constantly scream and shout "Its for the Artists!", when trying to perpetually claim all rights to music, by trying to ensure that no musician could ever get back rights to their music.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Phara takes a dive

"I'm pretty sure he was talking about the judicial system and incarceration. Not sure why you're in such a lather."

These guys from NinjaVideo were convicted, after an investigative operation that directly harmed thousands of innocent people, in having "You're a Child Pornographer/You're a Thief" put up all over their web sites. That's what has me angry.

Really. Those words appeared?

"If that happened it was wrong. I doubt that any employee of the "copyright cartel" had the ability to edit legislation in such a manner. Sorry, try again."

T he guy who did it? Mitch Glazier.http://www.linkedin.com/in/mglazier
Now works for the RIAA. In a top level position for a top level salary after subverting the democratic process by sneaking into Congress in the middle of the night, altering a bill unlawfully in such a way as to benefit his future paymasters. The same paymasters who constantly scream and shout "Its for the Artists!", when trying to perpetually claim all rights to music, by trying to ensure that no musician could ever get back rights to their music.

Oh, so he wasn't employed by the copyright industry at the time. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Oh, so he wasn't employed by the copyright industry at the time. Thanks for clearing that up."
If Mitch had been successful, what he did would have benefited the RIAA and the RIAA only. He was a Congressional staffer at the time. Only a few months afterward, he got a $500,000 a year job at the RIAA. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened.

Lastly, before I go to sleep...take a look at all you've written. Take a look at what I and other opponents of Protect IP have written here. I'll give you a hint.
A F*ck ton of evidence showing that the RIAA, and the copyright cartel in general, cannot be TRUSTED. That is why we oppose Protect IP. The law may be worded to be precise, but even without it, ICE did a colossal amount of collateral damage in their takedowns.

The cosmicgnostic link didn't open. The torrentfreak did. The notice didn't say shit about child porn. Or being a thief for that matter. Unless you interpret the warning language about infringement and counterfeiting as theft..... ah, ha.... at last you get it. g'night mate.

I suppose it depends on the scale of the crime. You cited one case in Prince George's County.

In San Diego where I live, when they raided a local pawn shop they only found one stolen item out of several items that were claimed to have been stolen. The pawn shop remains open. That was my reference. Laugh all you want, I guess.

That sounds right, it does depend on scale. A site dedicated to infringing activity get seized. Youtube will not be shut down just because some knucklehead posts infringing content. Sounds like I have you writhing in the crushing grip of reason. About time, I was starting to think that you were slow or something.

Mike, the lack of respect for the rights of creators is the issue here, not some "lack of imagination". If you want to start new business models, knock yourself out. Just don't force (through piracy and other nefarious means) companies and creators in there who just don't want to be there.

Re:

I doubt you meant to say that, that or you did so without actually thinking through what you were saying.

Why do I say this? Well, let me tell you why.

Key examples of people who piggyback off the work of others would be as follows:

Studios/labels (Both of who notoriously profit off the work of others. Those movies and tv shows as of late that are remakes of other movies/tv shows, guess what? That's piggybacking off the work of others. Those movies that are based off books/comics, ditto. Those label execs who are the most stringent in regards to punishing file sharers, who claim that they're doing it for the content creators... well, it's interesting some, like yourself are so quick to defend the labels, because they're, the execs/middlemen, the same people who DO NOT actually create any content, but profit off the work of those who do.)

Patent trolls. (They go around either buying patents produced by others, or patenting things that are so obvious/common sense, and then proceed to produce nothing from said patents. Instead they sit around literally waiting to sue others who come up with ideas that are similar, as in "it's so obvious, that anyone could come up with the same thing unintentionally", and then sue them for violating their patents.)

I mean, heck, what you're advocating for is basically the end of all creation as we know it. All entertainment in any form is essentially derivative of something else. Or better said, all works for the most part are "piggybacking on the work of others".

And no, it's not the lack of respect for the rights of creators that is the issue here. It's naive to say so. Most people who file share in fact have nothing but respect for the creators. What they have is a lack of respect for the middlemen. The studios/labels, who constantly screw the creators over, but who claim to be doing everything they're doing for "the artists". Which is a crock. What is the issue here is CONTROL. They've lost it. People now have so many options and way to entertain themselves, that they can stop taking what is essentially forced down their throats. That or they can say "you know what, I'd rather do without, or get independent, than pay your outrageous prices". The market SHOULD dictate value for products, not the other way around. And that's what this is about, people realize they've been getting the shaft for decades now and they're turning to alternate things (not all of which are illegal, before you say that; Netflix, Spotify, etc are great examples of what people want, and things which are now being slowly killed by the studios/labels out of greed) and this has those who were formerly in control scared and upset. Thus the mad scramble to use any and all means necessary to maintain their dwindling grasp of power and control.

Re: Re:

"Studios/labels (Both of who notoriously profit off the work of others. Those movies and tv shows as of late that are remakes of other movies/tv shows, guess what? That's piggybacking off the work of others. "

It would be if they weren't paying for the rights or working from the public domain.

"Most people who file share in fact have nothing but respect for the creators. What they have is a lack of respect for the middlemen."

Yes, but understand, the creators get paid because the middlemen get paid. By fucking with the middlemen, you end up hurting the creators. You protest the middlemen, but in doing so you hurt the very people you claim to respect. For me that sounds more like justification for piracy, because it clearly doesn't respect the creator.

Re: Re: Re:

"It would be if they weren't paying for the rights or working from the public domain."

Actually no, you said "stop piggybacking off the work of others, and do it yourself". You didn't say anything about "paying for the rights or working from the public domain". Read what you wrote again and my response. Read it a second and a third time, just so it sinks in. My response is more than correct. You DID say, basically, DO IT YOURSELF AND STOP BORROWING/RIFFING ON WHAT OTHERS DID FIRST. Don't change the tune because you didn't like my reply. Either be VERY specific in what you say, or watch it get turned around on you. And if that happens, it's no one's fault but your own.

"Yes, but understand, the creators get paid because the middlemen get paid. By fucking with the middlemen, you end up hurting the creators. You protest the middlemen, but in doing so you hurt the very people you claim to respect. For me that sounds more like justification for piracy, because it clearly doesn't respect the creator."

Actually no, the creators get BARELY paid. By f*cking the middlemen, or better said NOT F*CKING THE MIDDLE because we're not all ripping them off, a majority is simply doing without/finding alternatives rather than give to them (which is a big difference from what you're saying), as you not so eloquently put it, we actually end up HELPING the creators. How so, you ask? Good question, we give our money to creators through any means possible that avoids a cut going to the middlemen. Donating directly to them for projects, buying merchandise directly from them, going to their shows/concerts, etc. That proof enough for you? I could go on, but your mind is quite obviously made up and will ignore anything that doesn't go along with it's point of view or trivialize it for the same reason.

And what it sounds like to you is irrelevant to me. Nothing in what I said can even remotely lead you to believe I was justifying piracy, or better said I DID NOT say anything to that effect, what you misinterpret on your own is your own thing. Not my problem.

What I DO NOT respect is the act of trying to put words in people's mouths, which you've just tried doing to me to an extant. If you're going to reply to me, reply ONLY TO what I said. Not what you wish I said, or read into what I said. I am very specific in what I say to avoid things like that. You'd do well to be the same.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I always try to figure out which member of the Techdirt staff you are. You aren't the talenless Marcus Carab, and you aren't Dark Helmet (he would sign his name), so I suspect that you are either Michael Ho, or perhaps Nina Paley not logging in.

Either way, your post is weak, you are intentionally trying to misunderstand my points, and you are trying to bait me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I always try to figure out which member of the Techdirt staff you are. You aren't the talenless Marcus Carab, and you aren't Dark Helmet (he would sign his name), so I suspect that you are either Michael Ho, or perhaps Nina Paley not logging in."

Actually, I am not a staff member. I was pointed to this site, thinking it was more just about tech in general, by a friend. I'm just a regular Average Joe. I don't see you signing in with a name either, so you're really one to talk. For all I know, all the "you're all thieves/freetards" ACs are just you, posting from different IP addresses/computers.

"Either way, your post is weak, you are intentionally trying to misunderstand my points, and you are trying to bait me."

If my "post is weak", it should be easy to refute then, shouldn't it? I am not intentionally trying to misunderstand your points. You said something (without being specific) and thus left them open to interpretation. Like I said, you weren't specific enough in what you said. Thus my response. Neither am I trying to bait you. I'm trying to have a discussion, like an adult. If "trying to bait" you consist of refuting what you say, showing examples to support what I say, etc, then yeah I guess I am baiting you. But that's a pretty bad definition of "bait".

"My answer: FUCK OFF.

Got it?"

I see, so your response to my reasonable response is profanity and dismissal. More than likely said not because you don't want to talk, but you don't like that someone is able to refute what you say and do so over and over. You don't like that someone is telling you to either be VERY SPECIFIC in what you say or watch your arguments get turned around against you. It's okay, there's nothing wrong with your "FUCK OFF". I think it's a great reply, personally. It shows that you have no actual argument. And you can easily be "defeated" (if you will) with simple logic and reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You see, that's "Drive bye". Once you deflate his argument, he drives up to you, insults you, without so much as a good bye. He does this in a lot of threads and I find it absolutely hilarious. Hence, the nickname "Drive bye"

"We're talking about the massive amount of collateral damage that happens when you use such a bull-in-a-china-shop approach"

Funny that, I seem to recall a mythbuster episode where they tested that old saying and the Bulls very carefully avoided causing any damage whatsoever. I wish they would use a bull-in-a-china-shop approach since that way there would be no collateral damage.